Education and Children’s Services Committee Conference ...publications.fifedirect.org.uk/c64_AgendaPapersEdChServCom29081… · THE FIFE COUNCIL - EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Education and Children’s Services Committee

Conference Room 2, Ground Floor, Fife House, Glenrothes Tuesday, 29th August, 2017 – 10.00 a.m. ________________________________________________________________________

AGENDA Page Nos.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - Members of the Committee are

asked to declare any interest(s) in particular items on the agenda and the nature of the interest(s) at this stage.

3. MINUTES –

(a) Education and Children’s Services Committee of 4th July, 2017

N.B. – With regard to minute para. 4 (Appointments to Partner Organisations), the Committee is asked to nominate a representative to the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre Limited.

(b) Education Appointments Committees of 22nd, 26th and 28th June, 2017

3 – 6

7 - 9

4. CO-OPTED MEMBERSHIP AND OBSERVERS / ADVISERS – Joint

report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services) and Head of Democratic Services.

10 - 12

5. DRAFT LOCAL OUTCOME IMPROVEMENT PLAN – PLAN FOR

FIFE – Report by the Executive Director (Communities). 13 - 20

6. EARLY LEARNING AND CHILDCARE – Report by the Executive

Director (Education and Children’s Services). 21 - 53

7. EDUCATION GOVERNANCE: NEXT STEPS (JUNE 2017) – Report

by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services). 54 - 65

8. EDUCATION GOVERNANCE - FAIR FUNDING TO ACHIEVE

EXCELLENCE AND EQUITY IN EDUCATION – CONSULTATION RESPONSE – Report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services).

66 - 79

9. NATIONAL IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK – FIFE EDUCATION

AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES DIRECTORATE LOCAL PLAN – Report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services).

80 - 111

10./ 1

- 2 - Page Nos.

10. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

THROUGH PUPIL EQUITY FUNDING – Report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services).

112 - 115

11. EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES DIRECTORATE -

REVENUE BUDGET 2016/17 PROVISIONAL OUTTURN – Joint report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services) and Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Services).

116 - 126


CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN 2016/17: OUTTURN REPORT – Joint report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services) and Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Services).

127 - 135


REVENUE BUDGET 2017/18 PROJECTED OUTTURN – Joint report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services) and Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Services).

136 - 145


CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN 2017/18: PROGRESS REPORT – Joint report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services) and Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Services).

146 - 150

15. IMPROVING AND DEVELOPING CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICE

IN FIFE – Report by the Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services).

151 - 211

16. EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE – WORK

PROGRAMME. 212 - 215

Linda Bissett, Head of Democratic Services, Finance & Corporate Services. Fife House, North Street, Glenrothes, Fife. KY7 5LT 22nd August, 2017. If telephoning, please ask for:-

Susan Williams, Committee Administrator, Fife House, Glenrothes Telephone: 03451 555555 (Ext. 442243) or E-mail: [email protected] Agendas and papers for all Committee meetings can be accessed on www.fifedirect.org.uk/committees

2

2017.E.Ch.S.C.1

THE FIFE COUNCIL - EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE - GLENROTHES 4th July, 2017 10.05 a.m. - 12.05 p.m. PRESENT: Councillors Fay Sinclair (Convener), Tim Brett, Bobby Clelland,

Ian Ferguson, Julie Ford, Kathleen Leslie, Rosemary Liewald, Tony Miklinski, Dominic Nolan, Ryan Smart, Sam Steele and Vikki Wilton and Mr George Haggarty and Rev. Hugh Steele.

ATTENDING: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services),

Shelagh McLean, Head of Education & Children’s Services (Equity & System Improvement), Education & Children’s Services Directorate: Louise Playford, Service Manager (School Estate) and Avril Graham, Sustainable Estate Officer, Property Services: Susan MacKessack, Managing Solicitor, David Henderson, Team Manager/Adviser and Susan Williams, Committee Administrator, Finance & Corporate Services.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Linda Erskine and Helen Law and

Mr. Alastair Crockett. 1. WELCOME

Councillor Fay Sinclair (Convener) welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Education & Children’s Services Committee.

2. EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE - MEMBERSHIP AND

REMIT

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services setting out the membership and remit of the Education & Children’s Services Committee. Decision The Committee agreed:- (a) to note the report; (b) that it be remitted to officers in consultation with the Convener and

Vice-Convener to pursue the inclusion of an additional religious interest representative, parent representative and young person to attend meetings, as appropriate, and that Committee members be kept advised regarding progress, including criteria for the recruitment and selection of these individuals.

3./

Education & Children’s Services Committee 29th August, 2017 Agenda Item No. 3(a)

3

2017.E.Ch.S.C.2

3. EDUCATION APPEAL COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT COMMITTEES -

MEMBERSHIP AND REMIT The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services setting out

the membership and remit of the Education Appeal Committees and Education Appointment Committees.

Decision The Committee agreed to:- (a) note the report;

(b) note the approval of the appointments as a parent representative and persons with experience in education to the panel for Education Appeal Committees;

(c) remit to the Head of Democratic Services to proceed with arrangements with

a view to further appointments being made as parent representatives; and (d) note that a Governance Working Group had been established to consider

governance issues identified by elected members over the summer period and that this would be the appropriate Group which should be approached by any member with suggested amendments to the membership and remit of Education Appointment Committees.

4. APPOINTMENT TO PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services seeking appointments for Fife Council representation on a number of partner organisations and to appoint representatives accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to:- (a) approve the multiple appointments to partner organisations as detailed below;

and (b) note that a decision on the representative for the Scottish Schools Education

Research Centre Limited be deferred until the next meeting. Appointments Scottish Chamber Orchestra Decision

Councillor Rosemary Liewald was appointed as Fife Council representative on the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Fife/

4

2017.E.Ch.S.C.3

Fife Corporate Parent Board Councillors Fay Sinclair, Ryan Smart and Sam Steele were appointed as Fife Council representatives on Fife Corporate Parent Board. Youth 1st Councillors Rosemary Liewald and Ryan Smart were appointed as Fife Council representatives on Youth 1st.

5. PRESENTATION BY LEAD OFFICER

The Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) made a brief presentation summarising the respective roles and responsibilities of the five Heads of Service within her Directorate. Decision The Committee noted the presentation.

6. STATUTORY CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSAL TO RE-ZONE THE EXISTING

SECONDARY SCHOOL CATCHMENT AREAS IN THE DUNFERMLINE AND WEST FIFE AREA

The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) presenting a draft statutory consultation proposal paper, in terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, relating to the proposed re-zoning of the existing secondary catchment areas of Dunfermline, Inverkeithing, Queen Anne and Woodmill High Schools, and seeking approval of its content and approval to proceed to statutory consultation. Motion Councillor Tim Brett, seconded by Councillor Fay Sinclair, moved that the statutory consultation should not proceed as proposed and that re-engagement take place with the local communities in order that options could be gathered and considered with a view to a revised proposal being submitted to a future meeting of the Committee for approval as the proposal for statutory consultation. Amendment Councillor Tony Miklinksi, seconded by Councillor Dominic Nolan, moved approval of the recommendations in the report with the statutory consultation report being approved for progression subject to more detail about the rationale being included, and acknowledging that the content could be amended following discussions during the statutory consultation process. Vote/

5

2017.E.Ch.S.C.4

Vote Amendment - 3 votes

Motion - 10 votes The Motion was carried. Decision

The Committee agreed to re-engage with local communities in Dunfermline and West Fife regarding options for the catchment area of Dunfermline Secondary Schools with a view to gaining the confidence of the local community before coming back to the Committee with revised proposals for a formal consultation. A revised timeline for this exercise would be circulated to members in due course. Rev Hugh Steele left the meeting during discussion of the above item.

7. DELIVERING THE COUNCIL’S PRIORITIES: PLANNING & REPORTING

STRUCTURE The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director (Communities)

summarising planning and reporting arrangements through Committees for Council and Community Planning Improvement priorities.

Decision The Committee agreed:- (a) to note the report; and

(b) that a draft work programme for this Committee would be prepared for consideration at the August meeting.

_______________________

6

2017.EAC.1 THE FIFE COUNCIL – EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE – EDUCATION APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE – GLENROTHES. 22 June 2017 11.00am – 12.45pm PRESENT: Cllr Bill Connor (Chair) - Cllr Kathlenn Leslie - Peter McNaughton,

HoS – Angela Logue, EO – Nicola Syme, Parent Council – Linzi Sun, Parent Council.

1. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS Decision The Committee resolved that under Section 50(A)(4) of the Local

Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Act.

2. HEADTEACHER – BELLYEOMAN PRIMARY SCHOOL The Committee interviewed one applicant on the short leet for this post. Decision Agreed to recommend the appointment of Kelly Butchart currently

Depute Headteacher at Oakbank Primary School, Perth.

Education and Children’s Services Committee 29th August, 2017. Agenda Item No. 3(b)

7

2017.EAC.2 THE FIFE COUNCIL – EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE – EDUCATION APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE – GLENROTHES. 26th June 2017 09:30 – 12:10 PRESENT: Rona Maclean-Ross, Education Officer (Chair) Gordon Wardrope, Education Officer Lisa Curtis, Parent Council Glenda Altoft, Parent Council Cllr David Graham, Elected Member Cllr Kathleen Lelsie, Elected Member 3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS Decision The Committee resolved that under Section 50(A)(4) of the Local


4. HEADTEACHER – Sinclairtown PS The Committee interviewed 3 applicants on the short leet for this post. Decision Agreed to recommend the appointment of Pauline Bradshaw currently

Headteacher at Elie Primary School.


8

2017.EAC.3 THE FIFE COUNCIL – EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE – EDUCATION APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE – GLENROTHES. 28 June 2017 9.00am – 11.00am PRESENT: Cllr Rosemary Leiwald, (Chair) –George Haggarty, RC

Representative – Sarah Else, Education Officer – Scott Meal, Education Officer – Cameron Hunter, Parent Council – Clair Fernie, Parent Council.

5. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS Decision The Committee resolved that under Section 50(A)(4) of the Local


6. HEADTEACHER – ST JOSEPH’S RC PRIMARY SCHOOL The Committee interviewed one applicant on the short leet for this post. Decision Agreed to recommend the appointment of Jacqueline Crawford currently

Depute Headteacher at St Marie’s RC Primary School.


9


29th August, 2017. Agenda Item No. 4

Co-opted Membership and Observers / Advisers

Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) and Linda Bissett, Head of Democratic Services

Wards Affected: All Wards

Purpose

This report presents proposals for consideration arising from this Committee’s remit at its previous meeting (minute para 2(b) refers) to pursue arrangements for an additional religious interest representative, parent representative(s) and young person(s) to attend future meetings, as appropriate.

Recommendation(s)

The Committee is asked to:-

(1) recommend to Fife Council the appointment of Mohammad Mansoor Mahmood as a co-opted, non-voting member of this Committee in terms of Section 10 at the List of Committee Powers; and

(2) remit to the Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) in consultation with the Convener and Vice-Convener to pursue the appointment of non-voting observers or advisers to this Committee, to facilitate the involvement of parent representatives and young persons on an ad hoc basis.

Resource Implications

None.

Legal & Risk Implications

None.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA is not required as the report does not propose a material change or revision to existing policies and practices.

Consultation

The proposals regarding co-opted membership and observers/advisers set out in Section 2.0 of this report will require continuing consultation with those bodies and individuals potentially involved.

10

1.0 Background

1.1 At the Fife Council meeting on 15th June, 2017, the appointment of religious interest representatives was dealt with (minute para. 16(c) of 2017.F.C.16 refers). Arising therefrom, and in terms of the remit from this Committee at its previous meeting, initial consideration has taken place involving the Convener and Vice-Convener regarding how best to pursue the inclusion of an additional religious interest representative, as well as the attendance of parent representatives and young persons at future meetings (as appropriate).

1.2 The options available are set out at section 10 of the Council’s List of Committee Powers, extracted below:-

“Co-option of Members to Committees

All Committees may recommend to the Council the co-option of such other persons to the committee who are not members of the Council where it is considered that such co-option would be beneficial to the work of the committee.

Co-opted members shall be non-voting unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Scheme.

Prior to accepting membership of a committee, co-opted members shall be bound by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

Committees may appoint non-voting observers or advisers to them and may determine the terms of such appointments, including whether such persons can remain in the committee room to discuss confidential items and whether they should be bound by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.”

2.0 Proposals for Consideration

2.1 Additional Religious Interest Representative – Co-option

2.1.1 Fife Council on 15th June, 2017 appointed Alastair Crockett as “a third person interested in the promotion of religious education”, with Mohammad Mansoor Mahmood, the nominee of the Kirkcaldy Central Mosque and Community Centre, being unsuccessful. It is proposed that the co-option of Mr Mahmood as a non-voting member would be beneficial to the work of this Committee, to facilitate inclusivity.

2.1.2 Mr Mahmood has been approached regarding a potential offer to participate regularly as a co-opted, non-voting member of the Committee and has indicated his willingness to do so. This proposed appointment would be subject to approval of a recommendation from this Committee by Fife Council and Mr Mahmood would be bound by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (as are the Council’s other three religious interest representatives).

2.2 Parent Representatives and Young Persons – Observer/Advisers

2.2.1 It is felt that, rather than full co-option as proposed at section 2.1 above, the slightly less formal approach of appointing non-voting observers or advisers is a more appropriate way to facilitate the involvement of parent representatives and/or young persons in the work of this Committee. The extent of that involvement could be determined by means of a remit to the Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services), who would arrange such participation depending on the subject matter under consideration at any meeting, as well as the terms of such appointments on an ad hoc basis. 11

2.2.2 The criteria and method for selecting such representatives also could be remitted to the Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) in consultation with the Convener or Vice-Convener, potentially allowing for a range of participants at different meetings (depending on circumstances). Those likely to be invited are expected to include Parent Council representatives (nationally and/or locally) and Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament from Fife.

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 It is felt that the proposals outlined in section 2.0 above provide a suitable means of ensuring a broad range of interests are represented at future meetings of this Committee.

List of Appendices

None Background Papers

None Report Contacts

Carrie Lindsay Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) Fife House North Street Glenrothes KY7 5LT Telephone: 03451 555555, Ext. No. 480218 Email: [email protected] David Henderson Team Manager/Adviser (Committee Services) Democratic Services Fife House North Street, Glenrothes KY7 5LT Telephone: 03451 555555, Ext. No. 442242 Email: [email protected]

12


29th August 2017

Agenda Item No. 5

Draft Local Outcome Improvement Plan - Plan for Fife Report by: Michael Enston, Executive Director, Communities

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

This report provides an update on the report, Delivering Council Priorities: Planning and Reporting Structures, that was considered by the Policy and Co-ordination Committee at its meeting on 6th July, 2017. The report presents a number of emerging priorities and actions for potential inclusion within Fife’s local outcome improvement plan, the ‘Plan for Fife’, for discussion and comment.

Recommendations

The Committee is asked to consider and comment on emerging priorities and actions within the draft Plan for Fife, prior to its consideration by Fife Partnership Board on 12th September and Fife Council’s Policy and Co-ordination Committee on 13th September. In particular, the Committee is asked to consider:

a) Are these the priority outcomes for this committee?

b) Will the proposed actions deliver these outcomes?

c) Are these the appropriate performance indicators?


The proposals outlined in the draft plan will be delivered within the agreed budgets of Fife Council and its community planning partners, supplemented, wherever possible, by additional external funding.


The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 requires all 32 community planning partnerships in Scotland to prepare a local outcome improvement plan (LOIP) by October 2017.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA will be undertaken prior to approval of the plan.

13

Consultation

There have been consultations with community planning partners, wider staff groups and members of the public through Fife’s Strategic Assessment and a range of consultation events.

1.0 Background

1.1 On 6th July, the Policy and Co-ordination Committee approved proposals for a new planning and reporting structure for Fife Council, based on the preparation of a local outcome improvement plan, to be known as ‘The Plan for Fife’. The report outlined new Council reporting arrangements, setting out the respective roles of Fife Council, Policy and Co-ordination Committee, strategic committees, area committees and scrutiny.

1.2 The new arrangements provide straightforward and transparent processes for agreeing and adjusting Council priorities and for monitoring and reporting progress. These arrangements are also expected to support the integration of planning and delivery across the public sector. Specifically, the Community Empowerment Act 2015 now requires the Council and its community planning partners to: prepare and publish a local outcome improvement plan setting out the local

outcomes which the community planning partners will prioritise for improvement;

identify smaller areas within the local authority area which experience the poorest outcomes in relation to issues such as incomes, employment and health, and to develop ‘locality plans’ for those areas;

review and report publicly on progress towards the local outcome improvement plan and locality plans.

1.3 The requirements under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015

complement longer established audit and reporting arrangements under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, including the requirement for councils to publicly report on performance.

1.4 The meeting of Fife Council of 18th May 2017 noted a proposed Programme for

Administration setting out policy and service commitments for delivery over the term of the Council). The agreed planning structure describes how these commitments will be incorporated into formal outcome and delivery plans and the role of committees in taking these forward. The Plan for Fife sets out the key outcomes that the Council and partners are seeking to achieve for Fife.

1.5 This report sets out timescales for developing the Plan for Fife in order to meet a 1st

October 2017 deadline for publication of local outcome improvement plans.

14

2.0 The Plan for Fife: Evidence Base

2.1 Over the past two years, Fife Council and the Fife Partnership have engaged with members of the public, voluntary and public sector partners and businesses on a range of issues. This engagement has been used to inform the development of key plans and strategies, including the Fairness Matters report, the Fife Economic Strategy, the Children’s Services Plan and the Fife Strategic Assessment

2.2 These consultations have provided a useful overview of the challenges and opportunities for Fife over the next ten years for those involved in providing services, developing strategy and drawing up policies.

2.3 The Fife Strategic Assessment drew on a wide range of existing research and work undertaken specifically for the assessment to provoke debate about some of the challenges and opportunities identified, the rate of improvement in outcomes and what matters to the people of Fife. In addition, seven local strategic assessments were carried out in early 2017 and these in turn contributed to the overall assessment. Some of the key findings from these local assessments are presented in Appendix 1.

3.0 Developing the Plan for Fife 3.1 The Community Empowerment Act outlines the importance of bringing together the

collective talents and resources of local public services and communities to drive positive change, and the development of the local outcome improvement plan provides a valuable opportunity to advance this process.

3.2 At its meeting on 21st February, the Fife Partnership Board agreed to move away

from the current model of strategic planning, which requires multiple plans, including a community plan, single outcome agreement, strategic partnership plans and organisational plans (e.g. the Council Plan), to a more streamlined approach based on shared leadership and single Plan for Fife. The Board also agreed to develop simplified governance and plan management arrangements, while at the same time building in controls to ensure consistency and golden thread.

3.3 In line with this decision, the Plan for Fife will incorporate key Fife Council priorities,

replacing the previous Fife Council Plan.

3.4 A timetable for developing the Plan for Fife is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Plan for Fife Development Timetable November 2016 Making the Change for a Better and Fairer Fife: Community

planning event to consider the Fife Strategic Assessment and identify priorities

15

January 2017 Report to the Fife Council Executive Team on Leading

Performance and Improvement

February 2017

Fife Partnership Board agree proposed approach to developing the Plan for Fife

April - July 2017 Partner/partnership engagement on Plan for Fife priorities July - August 2017

Preparation of draft Plan for Fife in conjunction with partners and strategic partnerships. Elected member engagement via strategic committees.

September 2017 Fife Partnership Board and Policy and Coordination Committee consider a consultation draft of the Plan for Fife

October – November 2017

Public consultation on the draft plan.

November – December 2017

Formal approval of the Plan for Fife by Fife Partnership Board and Fife Council

4.0 Draft Plan for Fife 4.1 In line with the agreed timetable, an outline framework of the draft Plan for Fife is

presented at Appendix 2 for consideration and comment by the committee. A number of emerging priorities and actions relevant to the remit of this committee are presented at Appendix 3. The draft plan is being developed on the basis of consultation programmes, the strategic assessment and to reflect Fife Council and partner priorities.

4.2 At the heart of the draft Plan for Fife is a firm commitment continue work towards A

Fairer Fife (Appendix 2.). This builds on and reinforces the Fairer Fife pledges made by community planning partners following the publication of the Fairness Matters report in November 2015. This commitment is in line with the expectation set out in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 that local outcome improvement plans should have a strong focus on addressing inequalities.

4.3 In the context of this overall priority, four priority themes have been identified to

direct the work of the Fife Partnership over the next ten years. These are presented in Appendix 2. They are:

Priority Theme 1 - Opportunities for all – Support for early years

and families, school attainment and skills for jobs. Priority Theme 2 - Thriving places – Tackling poverty, creating

safe, healthy places and building affordable homes Priority Theme 3 - Inclusive growth and jobs – Strategic

investment, fair work, connectivity, tourism and the green economy.

Priority Theme 4 - Community-led services – Empowered communities, prevention and early intervention, Smart Fife and What Works.

16

4.4 The outer rings of the Plan Framework list key work programmes for the Fife Partnership (in bold), along with key actions (listed in the outer ring of the diagram).

4.5 To ensure that the Partnership retains a clear focus on delivering improvements in

these areas, the plan will set out five year and ten year outcomes for each of these priorities. The Plan will also describe how Fife’s communities will be supported to become involved in shaping and delivering these improvements through their involvement in neighbourhood and local community planning.

4.6 The Plan will also set out proposals for developing a number of neighbourhood

plans for those areas in Fife that face the greatest challenges in area such as household incomes, employment, housing and health. It is proposed that these plans are developed over the next three years following an initial pilot in the Templehall area of Kirkcaldy.

5.0 Conclusion 5.1 The Fife Partnership’s draft local outcome improvement plan, a Plan for Fife, will set

out a ten year vision for Fife, based on a firm commitment by community planning partners to continue to work towards A Fairer Fife. The Plan will provides an opportunity for Fife Council and its community planning partners to develop a more collaborative and integrated approach to delivering better outcomes for Fife, based on shared leadership.

List of Appendices 1. Issues Identified in Local Strategic Assessments 2. Draft Local Outcome Improvement Plan Framework 3. Draft Priorities and Actions for the Education and Children’s Services Committee Report Contact Tim Kendrick Community Manager (Development) Fife House, North Street, Glenrothes Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 (Ext. 446108) Email: [email protected]

17

Appendix 1. Strategic Issues Identified in Local Strategic Assessments

Key: Committee areas where these issues are considered to be a priority

Local Strategic Assessments

Strategic Issue Identified

A. Demographic Change

All areas identify the changing population as an issue. The overall population is increasing, with higher numbers of older people in particular. However, this will also bring larger numbers of school age children in some areas and these differences across Fife will be important

B. Better Use of Local Assets

Better use of assets for both the community and local economy was seen as important. While assets include facilities in public ownership, the main thrust was around using local landscapes, heritage and culture, particularly for as yet untapped tourism potential.

C. Improving Connectivity

Connecting outlying and rural areas more effectively was an issue in a number of areas. This includes connecting potential workforces to jobs and education. Parking in towns and in residential areas was seen to be a barrier, as were public transport pricing and accessibility.

D. The Changing Economy

Local economic issues are seen as particularly important in central Fife. Despite the lengths of time involved, these issues often relate to the demise of traditional industries and the resulting dislocation of the population from more economically robust areas, particularly the bridgeheads.

E. Underlying Causes of Poverty

The need to tackle the drivers of poverty is particularly important in central Fife. This relates to the changing economy and connectivity. Longer term issues may also have reduced levels of ambition and aspiration in some communities, which can creates considerable inertia to change.

18

CStrategic Priority:

A Fairer Fife

Priority Theme 1.Opportunities for All

Priority Theme 3.Inclusive Growth & Jobs

Priority Theme 2.ThrivingPlaces

Priority Theme 4.Community‐led

Services

Town Centres First

Tourism

Strategic Investment (City Deal)Modern apprentices for priority groups ‐ under 25s; 50+; veterans.

Non‐domestic rates pilot

Industrial estate regeneration

Tourism asset map and investment

Prevention

Empoweredcommunities

What works?

Participatory budgetingNeighbourhood plansAsset transfer

Collaborative Learning

Decentralisation and integration

Smart Fife

Just do it funds

60% recycling rates

Digital participation

Public Wifi

Tackling poverty

Living wage

Affordable credit

Basic income pilot

Affordable Homes 3,500 affordable homes

Levenmouth Rail Link

*Early years & families

Family Learning Programmes

Healthycommunities

Mental health

*Raising school attainment

Targeted school investment

*Active communities

Safecommunities

Tackling antisocial behaviour

Reducing substance misuse

Integrated care

Parenting and family support

Skills for jobsSTEAM subjects

Accessible Greenspace

Connectivity Fair Work

*Child Poverty

Low Carbon

Appendix 2

• Actions of particular relevance to Education and Children’s Services Committee

19

Appendix 3. Education and Children’s Services Committee

Plan for Fife - Draft Priorities and Actions

Draft Priorities Early Actions Possible indicators Early years & families

Build on the success of our Early Years and Family Nurture work and extend school engagement with families throughout primary schools with a Family Learning Programme.

Ensure maximisation of Scottish Government funding for expansion of childcare and early years education towards delivering free provision to 30 hours a week by 2020.

Deliver 1140 hours of flexible, high quality early learning & childcare

Number of programme participants/hours of learning & childcare

Raising school attainment

Implement Scottish Attainment Challenge, including the Pupil Equity Fund

Targeted school investment

Renew all STEAM equipment in our high schools

Introduce measures to encourage pupils to take up STEAM subjects

Percentage of equipment renewed Percentage of pupils taking up STEAM subjects

Child poverty

Work to develop family engagement with support services to provide a range of support with family environment and financial support.

Work to address barriers to participation (e.g. the cost of the school day Support families to navigate and manage welfare benefit changes, reduce the number of benefit sanctions and maximise their benefit income Promote banking options, strengthen credit union services in Fife - complemented by the establishment of a social enterprise lending agency (CDFI) Enhance child care options in local areas to support families to access training and job opportunities

Number of children in poverty or % of children living in low income households

20

Education & Children’s Services Committee

Date: 29 August 2017

Agenda Item No. 6

Early Learning and Childcare

Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director, Education and Children’s Services

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

To provide Committee members with the background and relevant information to inform the planned expansion of Early Learning and Childcare from 600 to 1140 hours from August 2020 for all eligible 2, 3 and 4 year olds.

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that the Committee:

Approve the development of a model to deliver 1140 hours, subject to confirmed budget and legislative guidance, outlined within the Executive Committee report;

Support the proposed pilot projects as outlined in the report;

Support proposal to take local reports to each local Area Committee to inform members of planned provision in their local area.


Funding for both capital and revenue costs will be provided by the Scottish Government. Budget relating to the increase to 1140 hours has been allocated for 2017-18 as detailed in Appendix 1. Future budgets will be set based on plans to be submitted to the Scottish Government by 29 September 2017, detailing how additional capacity will be delivered.


There are risks associated with this development. If the allocated budget is not adequate to cover our delivery model our plans will require to be adjusted. This will lead to difficulties in meeting the projected timescales. The challenge to deliver the additional capacity across Fife and to develop sufficient additional workforce within current timescales cannot be underestimated.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA and summary form is complete. The summary form is an appendix to the report.

21

Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with the following interested parties:

Fife Wide Online Parent Consultation, November 2016 Parent engagement sessions, December 2016 Engagement with Fife Council Early Years workforce, March 2017 Scottish Government consultation on Blueprint for 2020 Engagement with National bodies for 3rd sector and public sector – Scottish

Childminding Association (SCMA), Early Years Scotland (EYS), Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), HUB and a range of early years’ partners.

Engagement with local childminders, private nursery owners and managers of voluntary playgroups.

22

1.0 Context

1.1 The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 detailed an extension to the provision of Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) to be delivered from August 2014. This increased the number of hours to be delivered, from 475 to 600 per annum, with the aspiration of increasing flexibility as to how families were able to access these hours. It also detailed an increase in the number of children eligible to receive ELC by including 2 year olds from families in receipt of certain benefits and tax credits, equating to approximately 27% of all 2 year olds.

1.2 Fife Council have successfully delivered the increased hours within expected timescales and have continued to increase flexibility for placements over the last three years, where 50% of our nurseries now deliver flexible models. We have also provided more 2 year old placements than any other local authority over this period of time.

1.3 The announcement from the Scottish Government as part of their election manifesto

to increase ELC provision to 1140 hours means a further review of how we deliver ELC in Fife by the end of this parliamentary term. All families will have an entitlement to 1140 hours (equivalent of 30 hours per week based on school terms) funded ELC from August 2020 for all eligible 2 year olds and all 3 and 4 year olds (approximately 8,800 children across Fife). This is almost doubling the provision that we already offer in Fife for Early Learning and Childcare. The Blueprint for 2020 sets the direction for the transformation of Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) provision in Scotland. It sets out the key policy principles that will underpin the expansion and our aspirations for how the ELC sector will look and operate in 2020. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/10/1665/downloads#res507517

1.4 This report outlines the first iteration of our plan to deliver 1140 hours by August 2020. It is likely to be amended as it goes through further work with the Scottish Government and their soon to be appointed Regional support posts. This report is an attempt to outline the direction of travel and help to inform the local authority of our intended model and to inform the Scottish Government to assist their decisions on the spending review.

1.5 In order to develop a model that will meet the needs of children, families and staff a

local governance structure has been created in Fife with a number of different work streams to ensure delivery of our model. All work streams currently report to the Best Start in Life Steering group. This structure allows us to develop our work around the following themes:

1140 hours ELC Building Programme EY Workforce Development Parenting/Family Work Outcomes/Quality Assurance Progression within Early Level Parental Engagement Trade Union Engagement

23

1.6 Fife Early Years Admissions Policy was revised in January 2014 to reflect the requirements in delivery of 600 hours ELC. This will now require significant changes and amendments to reflect the increased capacity and choices on offer to parents by August 2020. Careful media messages and clear communication with parents will be required and will be key to supporting parents to access the range and flexibility of provision that will be delivered and ensure they can maximise the impact of 1140 hours (equivalent to 30 hours per week over 38 weeks) funded ELC.

2.0 Background

2.1 The Early Years Framework, Christie Commission and recent research on early years and early intervention have all informed our thinking in Fife regarding our vision for the Early Years. The majority of this work is carried out on a multi-agency basis but there is a need for us to have a clear vision and focus for the work across the Education and Children’s Services Directorate within Fife Council.

2.2 The Family Nurture Approach – The Way Ahead report was discussed at Executive Committee on 1st March 2016, this summarised progress achieved to give children in Fife the Best Start in Life through service transformation and closer integration. The Inspection of Children’s Services 2016 endorsed the Family Nurture Approach (FNA) as an area of strength. The delivery of Early Learning and Childcare as part of the FNA is central to our early engagement with children and families at a universal level through a non-stigmatising and strength based approach.

2.3 The key elements of the Family Nurture Approach, with the Family Nurture Centre at the core of delivery are illustrated below:

2.4 Significant progress has been achieved over the last few years for example:

7 Family Nurture Centres offering 52 week provision 50% of our nurseries offering a flexible model of ELC 97% of our children placed in first choice of ELC provision Family Nurture Centres as Hubs where services work collaboratively delivering

a range of opportunities for children and families Embedded parenting programmes to improve attachment and family lives Increased participation of families living in SIMD 1&2 in parenting programmes

/ family learning Development of the early years workforce to maintain an effective delivery

model

24

Local early years networks developed to support effective coordination of resources at a local level

Fife Families website to signpost families to local opportunities

2.5 In Fife we successfully delivered the increased number of ELC hours for all eligible 2 year olds and all 3 and 4 year olds from August 2014. We have also introduced a more flexible model that has been recognised nationally, built around consultation with parents and staff in 2014.

2.6 In August 2015 each of the 23 local nursery areas in Fife (detailed in Appendix 2) had at least one Fife Council provision offering full day spaces or 4 hour sessions as well as the traditional morning or afternoon sessions. This model was further increased in August 2016 to 48 settings offering the flexible model of ELC, based on demand for full day and 4 hour placements.

2.7 During the past three years since the introduction of the flexible models, over 97% of applicants to Fife Council nurseries allocated through the nursery panels, have been offered their first choice nursery and first choice session length.

2.8 As part of the ongoing work leading on from 600 hours delivery, 32 early entrant provisions with capacity for 1000 2 years olds have been opened and staffed. 800 2 year olds are currently accessing this provision.

2.9 Our current focus is to build on the success of our FNA and flexible model of ELC listening to our families, staff and children to create new delivery models of Early Learning and Childcare that complement family life, allowing for access to employment and empowering parents to be the best parents they can be. A key priority is to maintain the high quality early learning that is recognised in Fife as well as providing 1140 hours of ELC.

2.10 The quality of Fife’s pre-school provision (including partner providers) remains significantly better than the national picture. In the three years to 2015/16 66.7% of the pre-school centres inspected by Education Scotland in Fife were rated “good” or better (as compared with 65.5% nationally). Over the same period, 75.0% of the Council’s own pre-school centres were rated “good” or better.

Outcome 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 % Key QI's in Education Scotland Inspections rated good or better (inspections of pre-school centre - 3 year rolling average)

80.6% Fife 72.3% Nat

72.4% Fife 68.6% Nat

66.7% Fife 65.5% Nat

% Key QI's in Education Scotland Inspections rated good or better for Partner Providers in Fife

61.5% 53.8% 57.1%

Proportion of Fife children secure in the Early level of CfEby the end of P1: Overall Literacy

92.7% 94.1% 94.1%

Proportion of Fife children secure in the Early level of CfEby the end of P1: Overall Numeracy

93.9% 95.2% 96.2%

2.11 Figures detailing National inspection outcomes have fallen over this period. Fife results are in line with this trend whilst remaining above the national average. The introduction of the new model of inspection with a change in emphasis to leadership of change and improvement through self-evaluation has had an impact on national and local results.

25

2.12 Efficient delivery of new build models and effective expansion and refurbishment in partnership with Property Services have resulted in exciting developments at Sunflower FNC, Woodlands FNC and Lynburn Nursery. These developments have been recognised nationally as good practice.

2.13 Fife wide, our nurseries, schools and vacant premises have been investigated to map out potential provision and accommodation opportunities for 2020. This work will help inform where we need to adapt existing nurseries, redevelop other Fife Council buildings or provide new nursery builds to create the number of additional places required by 2020. This information will form part of the return to the Scottish Government due on 29th September 2017 on which future funding will be based.

2.14 A statutory consultation was undertaken in November 2016 to establish stakeholders views on existing Early Learning and Childcare services delivery. This also provided an opportunity to gather views on the proposed increase in ELC hours to 1140 per annum.

2.15 The data from this consultation has been widely referred to across this paper and has informed the service design to date. A draft paper on the consultation responses is now available which will be published before submission to Scottish Government in September 2017.

2.16 Our intention in planning the programme of delivery of 1140 hours is based on our belief that we should work with both children and their families. The Family Nurture Approach is firmly embedded in our current nurseries and parental engagement and learning is delivering improved outcomes for our youngest children. The increased hours will offer parents further choice and flexibility, matching the needs of their families and meeting the current context of each local community. The delivery model will offer a blend of provision, Local Authority Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) settings, Private Nurseries, Playgroups, Childminders and Out of Nursery Care.

2.17 The additionality across Fife will support parents in work and training to access the flexibility they need to meet their children’s early learning and care needs. The programme will deliver a range of provision and will have sufficient capacity for parents to be able to purchase additional hours to top up their funded entitlement in particular establishments.

2.18 The Scottish Government has funded development and piloting of our delivery model for financial year 2017/18 through Capital and Revenue allocations (Appendix 1).

Budget Indicative Allocation £m

Reallocated Funding

£m

Total Allocation 2017-18 £m

Final 2017capital allocation £m

Capital 2.126 0.150 2.276

Revenue

1.488 0 1.488

2.19 A number of pilot projects have been identified to test possible models and will be delivered as a local option for families during this academic session and the next (17/18 and 18/19)

Ceres – Outdoor nursery over a full day/week (50% based outdoors and 50% based within a traditional nursery building).

26

Childminding provision - Discussions have been established with SCMA and a group of Fife Childminders to consider provision of additional flexibility within local areas. The Central Early Years team are currently developing a number of pilot schemes following discussions with Childminders around flexible ELC placements for 2 year olds as well as alternative routes for Childminders to gain relevant qualifications in this sector. Other pilot schemes will also be investigated in conjunction with SCMA.

Fife Council Leisure Centre – a pilot is being developed to offer further flexible services including holiday provision in partnership with Fife Childcare Services. This model uses existing space within appointed leisure centres, reducing overheads and maximising the efficiency of the service.

2.20 Additional resources have been allocated to drive forward these developments and deliver the programme. Specific remits are leading on capital projects to ensure our feasibility exercise is completed and that an effective and efficient delivery model can be delivered within timescales.

2.21 The resource also provides a lead to ensure workforce development is a key development strategy. This work includes the delivery of new Early Years Foundation Apprenticeships, Modern Apprenticeships and an Adult Apprenticeship route to encourage work returners and those seeking a change in career direction.

2.22 Key workforce training programmes have been developed to support staff and ensure the continuity of high quality early years employees with built in career progression and development opportunities.

2.23 The Additional Graduate commitment from the Scottish Government will be targeted at nurseries within 20% of the most deprived postcode areas. Each authority is tasked with submitting an action plan no later than 29th September 2017 indicating planned allocation of staff. We already have identified additional staff to access the BA Childhood Practice course. In Fife we anticipate funding for 28 additional graduate staff, potentially a career development pathway for early years practitioners.

2.24 This paper outlines the work of the Education and Children’s Services Directorate regarding Early Years encompassing the proposed increase from 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare to an entitlement of 1140 hours of flexible ELC from August 2020 for all eligible 2 year olds and all 3 and 4 year olds.

2.25 The policy direction anticipates a model from 2020 where funding can follow the child. A new national standard will be set for partner provider status. The service model will prioritise quality of provision whilst offering parents a genuine choice of settings in local authority, private or third sector. Our proposed model reflects this intention.

2.26 Scottish Government intend the new delivery model to encourage Fair Work practices and to promote quality and choice. It will be the local authority responsibility to deliver the model and agree fair funding rates with partner providers to enable workers with funded children to be paid a Living Wage.

27

3.0 Vision for Early Years in Fife

3.1 Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life is our vision across the Community Planning Partnership for work in Early Years. This has been a theme in our Community Plan, Children’s Services Plan and Directorate Plan for the last 3 years.

3.2 To further develop our vision for early years within the Education and Children’s Services Directorate, workshops have been held to agree the values, aims and principles underpinning our approach and practice in Fife. These build on our Directorate Values of:

Compassion Ambition Respect Equity

3.3 Aims have been agreed in order to deliver a holistic service built around the child and family:

Developing literacy, numeracy and wellbeing in all of our children Providing parenting interventions to families that would benefit Supporting families to give their child a strong foundation in their learning Delivering the highest quality early learning and childcare Creating opportunities for play, exploration and creativity both inside and out Listening to children and families to better meet their needs

3.4 Guiding principles that drive the way we work with children and families:

The child and family are central to delivery Promoting wellbeing is at the heart of our approach Learning through play Opportunities to have fun Encouraging self-motivation and curiosity Providing opportunity and choice Showing empathy to all Developing resilience in children and families Joining up the learning journey across the early level Strengthening attachments through nurturing relationships across all sectors Engaging families in a range of parenting opportunities to build capacity Co-ordinating services at a local level

3.5 As part of our Early Learning and Childcare provision in Fife we view the following as essential experiences for all children:

Learning through play, both inside and out Flexible spaces to develop skills for life and learning Opportunities to eat well / prepare food Space to relax and refuel Opportunities for independence Space to be quiet and reflect Activities to stimulate the imagination Equipment and resources to develop skills for learning, life and work.

28

Opportunities to build and sustain relationships

3.6 To give every child the best start in life we need to consider the needs and aspirations of the whole family within their wider community. In Fife our Parenting and Family Support Strategy outlines how we work alongside families to build capacity. We have agreed core parenting programmes at a universal and additional level. Core parenting programmes will contribute to the following outcomes:

Increased parental confidence and wellbeing Stronger parent/child attachment Improved parenting skills and knowledge of child development Improvement in children’s early language development Increased resilience, emotional wellbeing and readiness to learn Stronger social networks and community connectedness Increased participation of parents in children’s learning

3.7 High quality Early Learning and Childcare is not delivered in isolation but requires flexible approaches to partnership working including:

Drop-in to access services Close working links Hot desking / use of shared IT facilities Networks to support collaborative working and sharing good practice Information sharing Joint training and development

3.8 Success will be measured through a range of outcomes including attainment in P1, improvement in parenting capacities, Education Scotland and Care Inspectorate inspection results and Fife’s early years assessment toolkit (eLiPS).

4.0 Delivery Model of Early Learning and Childcare

4.1 Our new model of delivery for Early Learning and Childcare in Fife is being developed around an area based model that includes a range of options for parents. The core delivery model would be available in all 7 Committee Areas, based on the 23 extended local nursery areas as detailed in Appendix 2, with additional delivery models being available where facilities allow.

4.2 The Family Nurture Centre and its associated role within each of the 7 areas is central to the success of any new model. Built around each Family Nurture Centre would be a range of different provisions in each of the 23 extended local nursery areas to ensure local access to core options available. Parents would be able to choose the type of core provision locally that best suits their needs. Parents who require additional childcare (wraparound) beyond the 1140 hours would be able to pay for this in settings where there is additional capacity available. Descriptions of proposed delivery models are detailed in Appendix 3.

4.3 Family Nurture Centres are now established in 7 Committee Areas. They provide extended support for more vulnerable families, and also contribute to the delivery of parenting interventions and supporting family learning. The FNC work with local partners, provide opportunities for workforce development, model high quality ELC, and co-ordinate services offered from the Family Nurture Centres. These include:

29

Parenting Interventions e.g. Incredible Years Family Learning Workforce Development and Training Access to early years expertise Partnership Working models

4.4 A core delivery model with an agreed range of services will be offered in each of the 23 extended local nursery areas. This helps to ensure an equitable provision of Early Learning and Childcare which is accessible for children and their families. Each area will provide the following services:

Fife Council nursery provision – term time Fife Council nursery provision – full year Partner providers – a combination of private nurseries, playgroups and

childminders as available. Parent Funded Wraparound – term time before and after funded ELC sessions

and holiday provision

4.5 This should open up more choice for parents and carers and ensure services are more responsive to the needs of families, but with the guarantee of high quality provision.

4.6 Local authorities will continue to play a vital role in delivering the funded ELC entitlement – as the primary guarantors of quality and the key enablers of flexibility and choice. Local authorities will retain statutory responsibility for ensuring that funded ELC entitlement is available to all eligible children in their area, and will receive funding from Scottish Government to enable them to discharge this responsibility.

4.7 Following implementation of the new service model in 2020, it will still be for local authorities to negotiate and agree rates with providers in the private and third sectors who want to deliver the funded entitlement and who meet the national standard. However, these rates will be required to reflect national policy priorities, including payment of the Living Wage.

4.8 In addition to the core delivery model, a range of alternative services may be available in one or more areas depending on locality and need:

Outside In Nurseries Outdoor Nurseries – park, seashore and forest Out of Nursery Clubs Leisure Centre Nursery Workplace Nursery Farm Kindergarten Health Centre Nursery Care Home Nursery

Further details and descriptions of the potential services outlined at 4.4 and 4.5 can be found in Appendix 3.

4.9 Frontline staff costings for each of the core delivery models are detailed in Appendix 4 along with costs for the Outdoor Nurseries, as this will involve different staffing ratios. Nurseries operated by Fife Council but based in alternative locations would still operate the core delivery models costed.

30

4.10 Other costs such as management and admin costs will only increase where additional capacity is created. These costs will be different depending on the type of capacity being created. For new builds or re-purposed Fife Council buildings (not currently part of the School Estate) there will need to be a new structure implemented covering management and admin functions whereas extensions will utilise existing arrangements.

4.11 Property costs will reflect the type of additional provision being created. Outside provision or Outside In nurseries do not have the same level of costs as a traditional nursery building.

4.12 In Fife, there are already budgets and procedures in place to support children with additional support needs to access 600 hours in local authority nurseries and our partner providers. Additional funding has been allocated to support children accessing our 32 early entrant provisions. The Scottish Government is introducing a national fund to support children with additional support needs. There is no current information on how this £0.5 million per session across Scotland will be accessed.

4.13 As part of our ongoing consultation with parents an online consultation was undertaken in November along with a number of parent focus groups in December 2016. A section on how 1140 hours of ELC should be delivered in the future was included in this consultation work and some of the results can be found in Appendix 5.

4.14 These responses show us that 35% of parents who responded would not intend to use the full amount of extended hours although we predict that uptake of placements will increase significantly once the provision of 1140 hours is established, as it did during the establishment of 600 hours of ELC. However, attendance would be unknown until uptake of places, which does pose as a risk to any model going forward.

4.15 There was a split between parents who would prefer 1140 hours delivered in term time with longer session times and those who wanted sessions to tie in with their working hours. Almost a third of the parents who completed the questionnaire would welcome increased outdoor provision.

4.16 This consultation will inform the work going forward to finalise models of delivery for each area and build on the changes already made as a result of the increase to 600 hours. The initial results of the latest consultation show that 35% of parents may not use the full 1140 hours.

4.17 We will engage in further consultation with all stakeholders during 2017/18 as Fife pilot models are developed and introduced. Evaluation of these pilots and parental feedback will help to inform the future direction of travel and ensure developments remain relevant to those who will use future services.

4.18 The Scottish Government have projected future demand for ELC in Fife. This information is based on current registration data and does not include any future increase in the uptake of funded places for 2 year olds, which has been increasing year on year as the service becomes more established. Whilst the projections show between 500-600 eligible children, in Fife we currently have almost 800 children in attendance. This reflects Fife’s long established early entrant provision in Family Nurture Centres and other nurseries. Allocation of places is based on an agreed priority basis where children eligible through the Scottish Government Criteria (income base) along with other vulnerable children referred by partner agencies such

31

as social work and health or those on the child protection register have been able to access places along with a wide range of parenting support services.

Scottish Government Projections for Fife Projected Demand for Early Learning and Childcare Registrations

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020% Change 2016 ‐ 2020

2‐year olds 571 575 571 565 568 ‐1%

3‐year olds 4017 3959 3988 3964 3920 ‐2%

4‐year olds 4055 3963 3911 3938 3915 ‐3%

Deferred 247 241 238 240 238 ‐4%

Total 8890 8738 8708 8707 8641 ‐3%

4.19 The Early Years Team, Property Services and the Sustainable Schools Estates Team have identified where additional capacity for ELC could be offered across Fife. This has involved a review of the existing school estate along with collaborative working across other services to identify suitable buildings and available land within the wider Fife Council estate. We’ve worked on the premise that we use any available space first across the council estate and look for opportunities to use existing capacity. We then looked at where we could extend and finally where new builds are required.

4.20 Work to identify standardised designs and accommodation schedules for nursery extension and new builds will enable economies of scale to be realised during the build process. Appendix 6 shows the level of work already identified along with associated costs. This does not include any costs in relation to upgrading existing facilities or abnormal ground conditions for new builds or extensions as these will be specific to each location.

4.21 The Care Inspectorate have recently published new guidance relating to nursery buildings to reflect the changes in legislation taking place around funded ELC. Any amendments to registration conditions for our existing nurseries would mean that we may need to upgrade these facilities to meet current regulations before any changes to registration could be implemented. This will have a financial impact as well as an impact on available resources to complete the building programme on schedule.

4.22 Pilot projects have been identified to test the concepts involved in both our Outside In and Outdoor (forest) models. Capital budget has been provided for 2017-18 as identified in Appendix 1 by the Scottish Government to begin pilot schemes to test these concepts. The first pilot of outdoor nursery is due to start in January 2018 and building work will commence on an Outside-In setting in October 2017.

4.23 A concept design for the Outside In model is shown in Appendix 7. It is envisaged that an Outside In facility would be developed in each of the 7 Committee Areas across Fife in-line with the provision of new nursery builds.

4.24 A design for a support pod for the proposed Outdoor Nursery pilot is shown in Appendix 8. There has been widespread interest in this concept nationally. Again it is envisaged that there would be at least 1 Outdoor Nursery available in each of the 7 Committee Areas.

32

4.25 Links have also been established with a number of other services within Fife to see where ELC can be delivered in settings other than traditional Education buildings. Work is ongoing with Fife Sports and Leisure Trust to pilot a number ELC settings within their facilities which we hope to establish this financial year.

4.26 Partnership agreements with other Early Learning and Childcare settings such as private nurseries, playgroups and childminders are an essential element to allow delivery of our model this provision will be expanded as part of the process of ‘funding following the child’. Partnership eligibility will be based on a national quality standard that all potential partners will be expected to meet to be eligible to deliver funded ELC.

4.27 The Early Years and Procurement teams are investigating alternative procurement processes which would be more flexible than our current system to allow us to enter partnership agreements as and when required. Our current partner provider procurement contracts run until July 2018. We hope to pilot this alternative procurement system in 2017-18 through procurement of a pilot scheme offering alternative provision for 2 year old services, which is not covered as part of our current contracts.

4.28 We have established a number of platforms which increase families and communities knowledge and awareness of the opportunities on offer. Our Fife Families site, the ‘Take Time’ campaign and recent consultation and focus group discussions across the 7 areas have further informed our communication strategy to try to ensure a better understanding of recent changes to Early Learning and Childcare.

5.0 Workforce Development

5.1 The Scottish Government have completed some preparatory work regarding providing a competent workforce for 2020. It is estimated that in Fife Council we would need a further 400-500 Early Years Officers to deliver the additional capacity required. We expect all EYO staff to be qualified to HNC or SVQIII level in an appropriate qualification. There is currently a major shortage of suitably qualified staff to fulfil our additional requirements.

5.2 In Fife we have begun to address this shortage by training our own staff through different apprenticeship schemes as well as extending the traditional college route to ensure we have sufficient appropriately trained staff for August 2020. Over recent years, we have developed a number of pathways to provide career progression opportunities for our Early Years Officers. These include Senior EYOs, Family Workers, Early Years Development Officers and Depute Head of Centre posts.

Mandatory Induction Programme

To ensure that all new staff are adequately versed in Fife Council ethos, approach and fundamentals of practice.

To be completed within first 6 months of employment.

Mandatory core Programme

Designed to ensure all staff possess a common set of core skills, knowledge and consistent fundamentals of practice.

Training we want every practitioner to complete.

Additional CPD Accessible to all staff. Courses focus on developing skills and knowledge central to excellent practice.

Simultaneously supports career development.

33

Outdoors Supports and encourages existing and new staff to develop confidence and enthusiasm for learning in an outdoor setting.

Every staff member to be encouraged to attend one outdoor learning course in a different context.

Qualifications Self-funded additional SVQ modules required to meet service expectations. Further qualification certification – PDA 9 and BA in early childhood practice supporting career enhancement.

5.3 Through additional revenue funding provided by the Scottish Government and the Workforce Youth Investment Fund for 2017-18 we have recruited 18 Modern Apprenticeship places to start in August 2017 under an established training programme in conjunction with the Employability and Employer Engagement team.

5.4 In addition we have developed an internal Adult Apprenticeship programme and we plan to recruit 25 candidates using the additional revenue funding for 1140 allocated for 2017/18 (Appendix 1) on this training scheme to start in October 2017 with an additional cohort of 25 trainees due to start in January 2018. This will allow us to create a more diverse workforce by removing the current age restrictions applied to Modern Apprenticeships.

5.5 This internal apprenticeship programme will be deliverable as a result of upskilling our existing senior staff to assess and verify candidates undertaking the SVQ III level qualification. By training our own staff to fulfil these roles we are then able to offer a sustainable training programme for apprenticeships moving forward which does not rely on funding from the Workforce Youth Investment Fund.

5.6 Additional funds have been provided by the Scottish Government to colleges to increase the number of HNC places for 2017-18 and Fife College will offer 64 additional places for 2017-18.

5.7 We have also been involved in establishing the Foundation Apprenticeships for secondary school pupils and 91 young people have been recruited onto Foundation level Social Services Children and Young People courses in Fife. Successful students will then be able to access the qualifications required to become EYOs with Fife Council, either through a Modern Apprenticeship route or through studying an HNC Childhood Practice at college.

5.8 Summaries of current staffing levels and projected training placements available are shown below:

Age Range

Position 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ TOTAL

Early Years Officers 58 141 222 107 92 66 35 721

Supply Early Years Officers 53 82 99 34 20 15 12 315

Early Years Development Officers

- 2 4 2 3 2 1 14

34

PROJECTED TRAINING PLACEMENTS AVAILABLE IN FIFE 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 TOTAL

Fife College HNC 164 164 164 498

Fife Council Modern Apprenticeships SVQIII 18 20 20 58

Fife Council Adult Apprenticeships SVQIII 50 25 25 100

TOTAL 656

The level of planned training places should allow us to recruit sufficient staff whilst also replacing existing staff as required as a result of retirements, resignations or career breaks.

5.9 Engagement sessions have been held with the wider early years’ workforce including Headteachers, Early Years Officers and Nursery Teachers to outline the programme plans and to encourage engagement and participation in the development proposals.

5.10 Staff feedback from these sessions was overwhelmingly positive. Practitioners recognise the increased opportunities that will be available to them, both in their professional development and career structure. As well as in the opportunities to work in different hours and shift patterns to meet their own family needs, many practitioners welcome the proposals to work more frequently in outdoor environments and to develop the concept of outdoor learning across out provision.

5.11 There were concerns raised about the Scottish Government shift towards childcare, as practitioners value the high regard our early learning centres have been held in over many years. It is essential that we continue to maintain our practitioner’s professional development as we progress our plans to deliver 1140 hours of ELC.

5.12 As a result of these concerns we will also review our existing training programme and establish a training pathway for new and existing staff to provide them with the skills and knowledge required to continue to offer a high quality ELC to children while delivering this in alternative ways to meet family needs.

5.13 The Scottish Government have recently announced the additional graduate requirement in areas of significant deprivation. They have allocated additional finance to universities and colleges to increase the number of training places available for degree level qualifications during 2017-18 with the intention that additional funding being made available to Local Authorities in 2018-19 to pay increased salary costs. In Fife this will enable us to employ 28 full time equivalent degree qualified staff to work in identified areas of deprivation. The Scottish Government intention is for these staff to be permanent full time posts and not a peripatetic model.

5.14 Staffing shortages will also be a significant issue for partner organisations offering ELC. Qualification requirements for staff of organisations wishing to go into partnership to offer ELC are still to be established by the Scottish Government but it is expected that they will need to be qualified to the same level as our own staff. Private nurseries and playgroups are already required to have the majority of their employees qualified to this level to meet Care Inspectorate requirements but there is currently no requirement for Childminders to be qualified in order to be registered with the Care Inspectorate.

5.15 During consultation with Childminders in Fife, qualifications levels were discussed and many Childminders felt that this would be a barrier to them offering ELC if this was a requirement of partnership. In order to remove these barriers we are investigating options to support Childminders in gaining appropriate qualifications.

35

We propose developing a pilot training programme where Childminders can become qualified, utilising our own staff trained to deliver the Adult Apprenticeship programme.

6.0 Finance

6.1 Following the increase in the number of hours of ELC for eligible children in August 2014 from 475 to 600, additional budgets were provided by the Scottish Government to fund the changes required on top of existing core budgets. This included both budgets for capital expenditure, on the understanding that there were additional building works required to provide more places for eligible 2 year olds along with some changes for 3-4 year old facilities, and an increase in the revenue budget to offer additional hours, particularly in relation to increased staffing requirements and partner provider payment rates.

6.2 As detailed in previous Executive Committee reports (November 2014, April 2014 and November 2013) this money was allocated to firstly provide the increased number of hours and then, from August 2015, to offer increased flexibility as to how hours could be accessed by children in line with family requirements.

6.3 The tables below show the allocation for both revenue and capital expenditure for financial years 2014-15 to 2017-18 and outturn for each year:

Revenue 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 £m £m £m £m Funding 5.023 8.822 10.592 11.081 Outturn 3.958 6.562 9.886 10.225

Capital 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 £m £m £m £m Funding 4.981 4.855 2.137 Outturn 1.405 4.577 2.502 3.489

6.4 Outturn was based on projected spend including the year on year increase in the flexible model of delivery for 600 hours. As Fife already provided ELC placements for vulnerable 2 year olds as part of our core budget, this accounted for some of the underspend between the revenue allocation and the outturn. Capital allocations were subject to slippage into the following year in-line with the profile for the building projects identified.

6.5 The Government have announced that they intend to fully fund the increased budget required to offer 1140 hours of ELC. The Blueprint for 2020 clearly states that this will be financed on a provider neutral basis (no preference on where ELC is offered) and that the funding will follow the child so that there is increased choice for parents on where they access ELC placements.

6.6 It is still incumbent on Local Authorities to ensure there are sufficient ELC placements available within their area and ELC placements at partner providers will still be procured by Local Authorities. Payment rates will need to increase significantly to meet the Scottish Governments aspiration to making Living Wage and Fair Work practices essential requirements of the procurement of partner provision by local authorities.

36

6.7 The assumptions we have made when calculating both additional Revenue and Capital expenditure required for the implementation of 1140 hrs are as follows:

Funding requirements have been calculated based on full uptake of 1140 hours by all eligible children.

The increase is based on the difference between current provision (600 hours) and 1140 hrs of funded ELC.

The number of partner providers will be increased to take account of the availability of current registered ELC placement capacity at private nurseries, playgroups and childminders in each local area.

Additional placements on top of existing ELC placement capacity in Fife will be provided through an increase in Fife Council provision.

6.8 The Scottish Government have issued a set of assumptions in July 2017 to support planning for the increase to 1140 hours. Included in these are metric and cost per m2 information from Scottish Futures Trust relating to building works costed on 2016 rates. It is accepted by SFT that these metrics are untested and will need to be regularly reviewed due to the diverse nature of the building works to be undertaken. All our recent nursery extension projects have also required refurbishment work to the existing nursery building, these works are not included within the SFT cost metric. Calculations based on the number of increased places we estimate we require using SFT metrics would give a budget of £44,724,960.

6.9 Fife Council GIFA and costs per m2 for Capital expenditure has been calculated based on current design concepts for increased provision along with cost estimations per m2 calculated from local nursery building projects over the last 3 years funded through 600 hours expansion. Estimated costs can be found in Appendix 6.

6.10 There is a risk that the Capital allocations will not cover the actual build costs to Fife Council. There is a shortfall between the Fife Council and current SFT metrics, particularly with new builds. There is also a significant difference between the estimated build costs per m2.

6.11 Work is ongoing to review current design concepts in line with new Care Inspectorate guidance issued in July 2017. We are also linking with other Local Authorities to see if we can reduce build costs through relevant purchasing frameworks.

6.12 There is also a risk that Capital expenditure will be allocated to local authorities through a formula based on population as it was with the 2017-18 1140 ELC budget detailed in Appendix 1. This would not reflect additional unused capacity already available within each local authority area. In recent years Fife have reduced additional capacity within the school estate in line with projected requirements at the time. We are also already in partnership with the majority of private nurseries and playgroups in Fife, reducing our ability to increase places this way. As a result this will mean that we may have a greater need to create additional places through building work in comparison to some other local authorities.

6.13 It is anticipated that Capital expenditure will be phased over a number of years up to 2021 in line with the projected building programme.

6.14 Assumptions covering the calculation of Revenue expenditure include:

Management, administration and premises costs will increase only where there is either an increase in the Care Inspectorate capacity for any particular nursery or a facility moves from a 38 week service to a 52 week service.

37

All Fife Council EYO contracts will be either 39 weeks or 52 weeks in line with the facilities they are based at.

Salaries have been calculated at the top of the relevant salary scale for each post.

Any management, administration and premises costs associated with new builds have been calculated on an existing stand-alone nursery of similar size.

6.15 There is a risk that the funding provided will not cover the flexibility proposed within our models for delivery and these will need to be adjusted to fit the funding available, once this is announced.

6.16 Revenue costs will be ongoing annual costs and will need to be index linked to reflect inflationary factors. Additional projected revenue costs are detailed in Appendix 9. These are currently calculated on maximum uptake of placements and maximum salary costs but will be refined during the finalisation of plans to be submitted to the Scottish Government by the end of September 2017.

6.17 Overall, we currently project that we will require £49,817,600 of additional Capital funding over a 3 year period between 2018 - 2019 and 2020 - 2021 along with £35,096,291 of revenue funding on an annual basis from 2020 – 2021 to deliver 1140 hours of ELC to all eligible children.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The evaluation of the FNA in Fife has confirmed that we are achieving positive outcomes for children and families through an integrated and collaborative model of delivery with ELC at the core of the model. To deliver flexible and transformational services across the 7 local areas we require a culture of improvement and innovation building on the strength of universal support.

7.2 The Parenting and Family Support Strategy gives the context of our approach to engaging families and communities through a strength based and participative approach. The outcome measures are clearly defined and services are working in partnership to engage some of our most vulnerable families through a non-stigmatising approach.

7.3 Our success in delivering 600 hours of ELC has created a strong foundation to inform the planning associated with the delivery of 1140 hours. We have recently consulted with families in Fife and this will help shape our delivery model. The ambitious nature of this policy objective, will require an innovative and multi-faceted model to be developed. Our key next steps will involve;

Further scrutiny of possible development sites and projected costs Continued engagement sessions with early years workforce and their Trade

Union representatives Consultation with third sector partners including Early Years Scotland and

Scottish Childminding Association about how a blended model of ELC can be delivered

Pilot new alternative models of delivery in a few sites e.g. an Outside In nursery, outdoor forest and nursery combination and a childminding and school nursery model of blended care.

Engagement with Private Nurseries, Playgroups and Childminders to explore their ability to deliver additional capacity for 1140 hours.

38

7.4 There are significant challenges ahead in delivering a quality workforce in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of increased capacity in our ELC settings. Further development of training routes are being established for existing staff and to attract new members to the workforce. Our new apprenticeship routes and options for redeployment from other reducing services will help us to build the workforce over the next 2 years to ensure adequate numbers for 2020. We are actively promoting early years as a growth market and an exciting and worthwhile career option.

7.5 We are committed to deliver an affordable and flexible arrangement for Early Learning and Childcare across Fife that builds on our current quality of service as part of our Family Nurture Approach. We view Early Learning and Childcare as the way to deliver a universal service to all families that allows us to build relationships and offer support to children and families at a more additional or intensive level as appropriate.

7.6 Work will continue to consolidate information and deliver our plans on how we propose to provide ELC to the Scottish Government by 29th September 2017. Once all authority submissions have been evaluated and the future level of capital and revenue funding agreed, we will be able to finalise our plans.

7.7 The work already undertaken places us well in developing an effective model of support in the Early Years. Confirmation of funding, both revenue and capital, will allow us to formalise or modify our plans to ensure that we make the progress we need to be ready for August 2020. Our current plans based on full uptake of 1140 hours by all eligible children project that we will require £49,817,600 of additional Capital funding and £35,096,291 of Revenue funding on an annual basis.

7.8 The proposed models of flexible ELC provide additional opportunities for parents i.e. accessing employment, improving life chances through access to longer hours to meet working needs. It is key to our vision for 2020 that we continue to consult and listen to parents as we move forward with implementation to ensure sufficient choice and flexibility is available in every area of Fife.

List of Appendices

1. Allocated Budget for 1140 hrs 2017-18 2. Extended Local Nursery Areas 3. Proposed Local Area Provision for ELC Settings – August 2020 4. Staff costs for proposed models of delivery 5. 1140 Results from Parent Consultation November 2016 6. Projected Capital Expenditure Costs for Building Work 7. Concept Design for Outside-In Nursery 8. Design for Outdoor Nursery Pilot 9. Projected Additional Revenue Costs 10. Equalities Impact Assessment Summary Report

Background Papers

A Blueprint for 2020: The Expansion of Early Learning and Childcare

Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014

Executive Committee Report (November 2013): 600 hours of Early Learning and Childcare

Fife Parenting and Family Support Strategy

39

Parent Consultation on Early Learning and Childcare and Out of School Care 2016 (Draft)

Report Contact

Carrie Lindsay Jane Mason Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) Early Years Learning Officer Fife House Rothesay House Glenrothes Glenrothes Telephone: 03451 555 555 ext 480218 03451 555 555 ext 442073 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

40

Appendix 1

Allocated Budget for 1140 hrs 2017-18

Revenue Funding 2017-18 - £1.488m

£m

Project development – increase in central team to deliver project £0.426

Staff development – various modern apprenticeship schemes and support existing staff to upskill

£0.724

Pilot projects – revenue costs associated with capital projects below

£0.339

£1.489

Capital Funding 2017-18 - £2.276m

£m

Foulford – modular accommodation £0.070

Rosslyn - refurbishment £1.390

Capshard - extension £1.425

Ceres – new build (outdoor) / refurbishment of nursery £0.080

Leisure centres - refurbishment £0.100

£3.065

41

Appendix 2

Extended Local Nursery Areas

42

Appendix 3

Proposed Local Area Provision for ELC Settings – August 2020

Family Nurture Centres (FNC)

A FNC has been established in each of the 7 Area Committee zones and they provide extended support for more vulnerable families. They also contribute to the delivery of parenting interventions and supporting family learning. The FNC’s will work with local partners and provide opportunities for workforce development and providing a model of high quality ELC. Local area provision:

52 week service for vulnerable families Parenting Interventions e.g. Incredible Years Family Learning Workforce Development High Quality ELC Links with Partner Organisations

Out of Nursery Clubs

Leisure Centre Nursery

Workplace Nursery

Farm Kindergarten

Outside Forest Seashore Park

Care Home

Nursery

Outside In Nursery

Fife Council Nursery Provision

Term Time

Wraparound Term time School

holiday

WoN

Farm Kindergarten

Playgroups

HolidayProvisio

FAMILY NURTURE CENTRE

Partner Providers Private Nurseries or; Playgroups or; Childminders

Health Centre Nursery

Core Delivery model available in all 23 extended local nursery areas

Additional delivery models available where facilities allow

Fife Council Nursery

Provision

Full Year

43

Appendix 3

Core Delivery Model in each of the 23 Extended Local Nursery Areas

Fife Council Nursery Provision – Term Time

All Fife Council Nursery settings will offer sessions in line with the school term. These can be sessions in line with the school day, 9 am until 3 pm Monday to Friday or can be shorter sessions either am or pm where parents can retain some of their funded hours to use either as part of a blended model of care with a partner provider or by accessing holiday provision within a Fife Council setting open for 52 weeks of the year.

Fife Council Nursery Provision – Full Year

At least one Fife Council nursery setting in each of the 23 extended local nursery areas will also be able to offer longer sessions over 52 weeks of the year (excluding bank holidays and in-service days). Settings will be open between 8am – 6pm and a range of session lengths could be provided, either am or pm sessions over 5 days or longer sessions over fewer days of the week up to a maximum number of hours each week.

More than 1 setting in each area may offer this service if there is sufficient demand for this provision from parents.

Paid Wraparound

Parents would be able to pay for additional hours of early learning and childcare on top of their entitlements in a number of ways:

Term Time – Wraparound, in addition to funded places will be made available in all settings where there is capacity, both in terms of staffing levels and Care Inspectorate regulations.

School Holiday – Parents would be able to access additional placements where available in Fife Council nursery settings open 52 weeks, again where there is capacity in terms of staffing levels and Care Inspectorate regulations.

Partner Providers

Private Nurseries - Private nurseries would be able to offer placements to parents for a maximum number of hours per weeks in agreement with parents (offered over a minimum of 38 weeks of the year) In addition to funded ELC many of these nurseries would be able to offer wraparound as required by families.

Playgroups - Playgroups are run by parent-led management committees. In the same way as private nurseries they would be able to offer funded ELC to parents up to a maximum number of hours per week in agreement with parents (offered over a minimum of 38 weeks per year).

Childminders – Childminders would again be able to offer a maximum number of hours per week in agreement with parents (offered over a minimum of 38 weeks per year).

Blended models of delivery could also be available to parents where children access ELC in a number of different setting during each week in line with family needs. Staff from all settings would need to work closely with each other to ensure that appropriate ELC was being offered to the child which continued and extended the learning taking place in all settings.

44

Appendix 3

Additional Delivery Models

Additional options are detailed below that would not necessarily available in all 23 Extended Local Nursery areas. These would be available where the local conditions allowed e.g. if a farm in a local area was interested in developing a Farm Kindergarten it may only be in that part of Fife.

Outside-In Nursery

An Outside-In Nursery would provide more external space than internal space. Children would spend a large proportion of their time outside but not full-time.

Outdoor Nurseries – Park, Seashore, Forest

Outdoor nurseries would be linked to a traditional nursery and children would spend 50% of their time in the nursery and 50% of their time either in a park, seashore or forest environment.

Workplace Nursery

A workplace nursery would exist in partnership with the local authority where an employer is willing to work with the local authority to provide ELC for their workforce’s children.

Farm Kindergarten

A Farm Kindergarten would exist where any local farmer in Fife would wish to extend their farm business to provide a farm placement for ELC in partnership with the local authority.

Out of Nursery Clubs

Childcare Services would establish Out of Nursery Clubs within a local nursery where there is sufficient need from parents for more than 1140 hours. The Out of Nursery Club would use the same premises as the nursery but would be staffed by childcare staff. Parents would pay for this service.

Leisure Centres

The use of Leisure Centres would be to add additional capacity through use of appropriate accommodation within the centre to offer ELC. This could be offered on a more flexible basis for parents to allow them to use the hours as required.

Health Centre Nursery

A Health Centre Nursery would be a nursery class located on the site of a new or existing Health Centre to develop Health Visiting and nursery working.

Care Home Nursery

A Care Home Nursery would be where a nursery class would be located on the site or within a new or existing Care Home to develop intergenerational work.

45

Appendix 4

Staff Costs for proposed models of delivery All options are calculated on the basis of 32 placements available for children:

Post Salary Scale

Hours per week

contract length

No of staff required Cost

Term Time Model SEYO FC7 36 39 1 36,410 EYO FC6 36 39 2 56,881 EYO FC6 25 39 1 19,751 EYO FC6 20 39 1 15,800 TOTAL 128,842 Full Year Model SEYO FC7 36 52 2 83,542 EYO FC6 27.5 52 2 49,848 SEYO (holiday cover) FC7 36 12 1 9,639 EYO (holiday cover) FC6 27.5 12 1 5,752 TOTAL 148,781 Outdoor Model ‐ Term Time SEYO FC7 36 39 1 36,410 EYO FC6 36 39 2 56,881 EYO FC6 22.5 39 1 17,775 EYO FC6 20 39 1 15,800 PSA 2 27.5 hrs FC4 27.5 39 1 16,971 TOTAL 143,837

46

Appendix 5

1140 Results of Parent Consultation November 2016

47

Appendix 6

Projected Capital Expenditure Costs for Building Work Committee Area / Type of Building Work

COWDENBEATH No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2

Refurbishment 4 1,975,500Extension ‐ ‐ New Build 2 4,086,400

DUNFERMLINE No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2

Refurbishment 2 616,500Extension 1 1,561,000New Build 5 16,019,200

GLENROTHES No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2

Refurbishment 6 3,385,500Extension 1 1,918,000New Build 3 5,107,200

LEVENMOUTH No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2

Refurbishment 3 987,000Extension 2 3,206,000New Build 1 3,657,600

KIRKCALDY No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2

Refurbishment ‐ ‐ Extension 2 3,087,000New Build 6 16,521,600

NORTH EAST FIFE No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2


48

Appendix 6

SOUTH WEST FIFE No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2

Refurbishment 2 352,500Extension ‐ ‐ New Build 1 3,286,400

SUMMARY No. required FC GIFA x FC Cost per m2


Capital cost projections are based on previous building work undertaken in nurseries as part of the expansion of ELC to 600 hours. The metrics used are based on current nursery design concepts which include space for family work to be undertaken in line with our Family Nurture approach.

49

Appendix 7

Concept Design for Outside-In Nursery

50

Appendix 8

Design for Outdoor Nursery Pilot The pod is designed to provide ancillary facilities for children and adults accessing outdoor provision. This includes toilet facilities, storage area and an area to prepare snacks. It is designed to have a minimal impact on the surrounding environment and can be relocated if required. Thought has been given to the external finish and the structure is able to be closed down when not in use to minimise the possibility of vandalism.

51

Appendix 9

Projected Additional Revenue Costs

Additional Staffing

Costs Additional Partner

Costs Additional Property

Costs Total SW Fife £ 2,248,180 £ 1,253,456 £ 62,988 £ 3,564,624 Dunfermline £ 4,015,711 £ 2,574,418 £ 405,937 £ 6,996,066 Cowdenbeath £ 3,507,409 £ 508,367 £ 197,415 £ 4,213,191 Glenrothes £ 1,428,949 £ 1,936,980 £ 61,425 £ 3,427,354 Kirkcaldy £ 3,822,949 £ 1,907,670 £ 175,755 £ 5,906,374 Levenmouth £ 2,515,981 £ 820,520 £ 131,205 £ 3,467,706 NE Fife £ 2,892,034 £ 2,829,672 £ 131,366 £ 5,853,072 Central Costs £ 1,353,802 £ 314,102 £ 1,667,904 TOTAL £ 21,785,015 £ 12,145,185 £ 1,166,091 £ 35,096,291

Please note that these costs are based on the latest projections from the Scottish Government and NHS Fife and assume full uptake of 1140 hours by all eligible children.

52

Appendix 10

Equality Impact Assessment Summary Report

Which Committee report does this IA relate to (specify meeting date)?

Education & Children’s Services Committee – 29 August 2017

What are the main impacts on equality?

Development of models of delivery for 2020 will focus on offering flexibility for parents and children on how they access their entitlement to 1140 hours of funded ELC. Not all models will be available in every area as some are dependent on availability of existing premises or partnerships.

What are the main recommendations to enhance or mitigate the impacts identified?

Pilot schemes will be developed during 2017-18 to test proposed models of delivery for 2020. These will be assessed through both qualitative and quantitative research to understand the impact on protected characteristics before the final models of delivery are agreed for 2020. If any impacts are identified in regard to equality, recommendations will be made to change the admissions process to minimise these impacts.

If there are no equality impacts on any of the protected characteristics, please explain.

Further information is available from: Name / position / contact details:

Gillian Johnston, Project Manager, Early Learning & Childcare

[email protected] / VOIP 444544

53


29th August, 2017.

Agenda Item No. 7

Education Governance: Next Steps (June 2017) Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services

Directorate)

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

This report is intended to inform elected members of issues and priorities emerging from the recent review of Education Governance conducted by Scottish Government. It summarises the Scottish Government’s Education Governance: Next Steps report and highlights key issues that emerge from it. It identifies how Fife Council might orientate itself in relation to a number of these key issues.

The report is written in such a way as to help elected members engage positively with planned national changes whilst ensuring that the needs of children, young people and families in Fife are properly taken into account during this process and that the implications of any planned changes are properly explored.

The wider intention in the report is to ensure that Fife Council is well placed to deliver change for the benefit of the people of Fife. The existing strengths in the Fife systems should not be eroded through any planned change, but rather augmented to improve outcomes.

Where relevant, this report also highlights some emerging themes that require further work to be done between national and local government, so as to ensure that an effective pathway forward in relation to planned national change, whilst seeking to build on the positive record of success that has been achieved over time in Fife for our children, young people and families.

Recommendation(s)

The Committee is asked to:

approve the proposition regarding the best option for Fife in terms of the regional collaborative that it joins with: the South East Scotland Alliance Grouping; and

agree that officers should take forward planning to progress arrangements for implementing the Regional Improvement collaborative and other elements of the Governance Review: Next Steps as required.


There will be resource implications when more detail is known.

54


There will be legal and risk implications but these are unclear until more detail is available.

Impact Assessment

Will be completed when full detail is known.

Consultation

Consultation was carried out by the Scottish Government on the Education Governance Review, the response was collated by SOLACE and informed the document, ‘Education Governance: Next Steps’. Fife Council made a full response to the original consultation. A further consultation on ‘Fair Funding’ is detailed in a separate report to the Education and Children’s Services Committee.

1.0 Background

1.1. A review of Education Governance was highlighted as part of the planning for Delivering Excellence and Equity in Scottish Education, which was published by the Cabinet Secretary for Education in August 2016.

1.2. The Delivery Plan is built on the priorities established in the National Improvement Framework, notably:

The wellbeing of children and young people Their academic attainment, especially in literacy and numeracy Their preparation for employment Tackling inequity

1.3. The Education Governance review was conducted by Scottish Government in the period from August 2016-June 2017. The report Education Governance: Next Steps (June 2017), which closed off the review process, promises a ‘revolutionised approach to support and improvement for schools’.

1.4. The report makes a strong commitment to improving education governance around the benefits of the changes proposed and there are a number of specific recommendations for change in the way education is governed in Scotland in future.

1.5. There is an underlying assumption that the ‘middle’ of Scottish Education needs to be strengthened, a factor noted in the recent OECD Review of Scottish Education (2015). The Education Governance Review: Next Steps report builds on this idea and highlights a compliance culture in some schools and a lack of capacity to support them from the centre of some local authorities as barriers to progress.

1.6. There is a proposed structural change designed to tackle this identified deficit which, as a consequence, will shift in the way responsibilities for school improvement work in practice. There is planning underway to legislate on this basis, with a bill due to be brought forward within the new parliamentary session.

55

1.7. Proposed change would mean some current local authority duties would diminish in favour of school based accountabilities. In particular, the report promises greater autonomy for headteachers who are to be given ‘sweeping powers’ over curriculum design, recruitment and financial controls. The stated purpose of planned changes is to free up headteachers to focus on learning and teaching.

1.8. The report also highlights that local authorities will work within the structures of Regional Improvement Collaboratives. It aims to provide ‘consistent excellence in local improvement services’ which it goes on to define in terms of what might be provided through regional collaboration.

1.9. Taken together, both of these planned changes arguably shift the strategic oversight of improvement of education in important ways, in general, away from local authority oversight. They also amount to a major change in educational practice in Scotland, with a number of consequences for local authorities, schools, teachers and support staff, parents, children and young people.

2.0 Issues and Options

2.1 There are a range of areas discussed in this report which relate to the statutory duties placed on local authorities. These are:

1. The responsibility to ensure that children thrive to their full potential

2. The responsibility to make sure that schools improve

3. The responsibility of the employer

4. Financial governance

5. Other Local Authority responsibilities

6. The National context

2.2 Since each of these areas is shaped by different pieces of legislation and involves complex policy and practice, both nationally and locally, it is not surprising that plans being brought forward run the risk of appearing general rather than specific about a number of aspects at this point in time. The interconnected nature of these aspects of local authority responsibility also means that it is difficult to envisage change to these elements that does not have the consequence of affecting the others.

2.3 Fife Council has a strong track record of responding positively to planned national change in key areas. This should give confidence to elected members that it is possible to support the planned national changes whilst seeking to use the opportunity that this presents to enable further improvement of local systems.

2.4 The following sections explore how each of these broad areas is affected by planned changes to education governance and suggests some of the potential consequences and risks to Fife Council which will require to be managed.

56

2.5 Key Issues: Getting it Right for Every Child

2.5.1 The Education Scotland Act (2000) and subsequent legislation on Additional Support for Learning make it clear the responsibility for children thriving to their full potential sits with local authorities. That act states: “it shall be the duty of the (education) authority to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential.”

2.5.2 This responsibility was further reinforced in the Education for Scotland (Additional Support for Learning) Act (2004) and the subsequent Code of Practice (statutory guidance, 2009). It is re-emphasised in the recent Children and Young People’s Act (2016). This means local authorities are accountable under legislation for ensuring young people with additional needs are appropriately catered for. Therefore, local authorities and not schools are the public bodies which would defend actions of the local authority and the school in Additional Support Needs tribunals.

2.5.3 Recent legislation on Children and Young People has reinforced the statutory role of local authorities to oversee the support for young people, as part of their work in Getting it Right for Every Child, through developments in planning and overseeing the work of Named Person and Named Person Services. This is especially true for those children and young people who have significant additional needs or who are particularly vulnerable or who have unique circumstances such as home educated children. Such approaches also take account of the fact that a service is still required during school holidays.

2.6 Key Issue: Early Years

2.6.1 The Scottish Government Early Years aspirations, expressed in legislation recently passed in the Children and Young People (2016) Act depends largely on the local authorities to implement it. The review makes it clear that, ‘Local authorities will remain democratically accountable for the provision of early learning and childcare and of schools’.

2.6.2 There are current challenges in implementing this strategy due to the need to expand capacity at pace, develop a much larger workforce by 2020 and to strengthen infrastructure and facilities. The Scottish Government remains committed to delivering its policy through the actions of local authorities within the early years context.

2.6.3 The last relevant aspect relating to this area expressed in the review report relates to the plan to provide a Home School Link worker for every school. This will require to be managed in relation to existing arrangements. The specific funding mechanisms for this planned change will also be important. It is unclear whether this development will be funded on a direct basis to schools or to the local authority.

Implications

2.6.4 There are fewer implications for local authorities in early years emerging from the Education governance: Next Steps document than in some others. This is due to the fact that there is less change proposed that would affect current practice. In GIRFEC and early years, recent legislation has shown the government’s commitments to delivering key policy pledges through the agency of local authorities.

57

2.7 Key Issues: Attainment

2.7.1 The Standards in Schools Act (2000) is clear that local authorities have the statutory, legislated responsibility to oversee the improvement of schools. In practice this means the responsibility for improving outcomes through local systems, including standards in attainment. The precise definition in the Act is: “An education authority shall endeavour to secure improvement in the quality of school education which is provided in the schools managed by them…with a view to raising standards of education”.

2.7.2 There is a stated intention to empower headteachers and provide them with new powers with the specific intention to allow them to focus on improving learning and teaching. There is an expectation that planned legislation will establish clear responsibility for improving attainment to be with headteachers. The direct funding to schools, as part of the Pupil Equity Fund, has been identified as a key driver in closing the attainment gap and is the first move to a more school-led model of delivery.

2.7.3 Headteachers are also given responsibility for the curriculum design, with some examples of local authority imposed curriculum models criticised. Until now the phrasing of ‘schools and local authorities will determine the curriculum’ has been consistent in documentation. The report cites examples of local authority curriculum designs which stipulate to schools the numbers of subjects that can be delivered in the senior phase as a blocker to school autonomy. There is a working assumption throughout that some headteachers have become disempowered by certain local authority systems, are trained for compliance with such systems and are the recipients of a lack of quality support from these systems.

Implications

2.7.4 The responsibility for improving schools currently sits with Local Authorities and key responsibilities are discharged to headteachers as senior officers. There is potentially greater accountability for headteachers in relation to attainment – to accompany the increased autonomy the report promises them. This will require to be managed by local authorities. The direct funding of schools will still require Local Authority oversight in terms of spend and governance. Headteachers’ clear responsibility for attainment will focus review of their performance. The planned headteachers’ charter will sharpen this focus and shape the nature of their accountability to line managers.

2.8 Key Issue: Quality Improvement

2.8.1 The Governance Review report states that local authority support for schools is ‘inconsistent’. The conclusion can be drawn that there is a gap between existing improvement capacity currently able to be deployed locally and that envisaged by Scottish Government.

2.8.2 It is still expected that local authorities will have Chief Education Officers in future. The expectation is that they will have a clear improvement function in relation to Getting it Right for Every Child but perhaps more of a regulatory function in relation to school improvement.

58

2.8.3 One of the biggest planned changes is in the establishment of Regional Improvement Collaboratives which will report directly to Education Scotland. It is not yet clear how these Collaboratives will work in practice or how they will be funded. Nor is it yet clear how the Regional Collaboratives will articulate with local authority improvement processes.

2.8.4 The report states, ‘We will establish a system of support through the regional improvement collaboratives to encourage and facilitate school improvement partnerships. The National Improvement Framework will provide the evidence and regional improvement collaboratives will be tasked with supporting schools to identify potential partners. These collaborative partnerships may cross local authority boundaries. The focus will be linking schools which either have a shared challenge or where one school is keen to learn from successful practice in another school.’

2.8.5 The report also describes ways in which these Collaboratives could work, as well as legislative duties to be placed upon local authorities in the future, which will:

‘have a new duty to collaborate to support improvement on a regional basis

be responsible for improvement through their provision of education support services

collaborate with other local authorities and national agencies to provide staff (including headteachers and teachers) to work within the regional improvement collaborative’

2.8.6 The report suggests that Education Scotland will also contribute staff to the Collaboratives. Mechanisms for doing this require to be developed. One question for Fife Council is regarding our choice of Regional Improvement Collaborative. There are a number of options here, see table below:

1. The Pan-Tayside grouping

2. The South East Scotland grouping

3. The Central Scotland grouping

2.8.7

1. Pan-Tayside grouping (Perth and Kinross, Angus and Dundee)

Pros Cons

Geographical proximity

Some preliminary work undertaken between Fife and these authorities

Context of Tay Cities Deal and economic links

An existing Tayside culture has driven the work of this grouping so far

The three other local authorities are significantly smaller operations than Fife, with less resource capacity in relation to improvement

59

2. South East Scotland grouping (Edinburgh, Midlothian, East Lothian and Borders)

Pros Cons

Context of Edinburgh City Deal and economic links important to Fife

The capacity for improvement within the collaborative

The importance of pairing with authorities from which Fife can learn

Some initial work undertaken

The large population base (1.3 million with Fife included)

The geographical distance to the south edge of the Borders

3. Central Scotland grouping (Falkirk, Stirling, Clackmannanshire and West Lothian)

Pros Cons

Some initial work undertaken Context of Stirling City Deal and

economic links important to Fife

The three other local authorities are significantly smaller operations than Fife, with less improvement capacity

Implications

2.8.8 The explicit functions of different elements of the system will become clearer as the implementation phase is mapped out in the legislative process but there is a possible risk of duplication in the system which needs to be managed. The local authority improvement function is undefined in the report. The language of the report suggests the need for local authorities to retain some residual improvement function, connected to the local political oversight. It is also clear that any residual improvement capacity retained by a local authority, outwith the scope of the collaborative, will be determined locally by councils and may be affected in future by pressure on budgets.

2.8.9 Fife council will be required to provide staff to support the work of the Improvement Collaboratives. To enable the transfer of staff to Regional Collaboratives, specific funding and governance arrangements are required. Fife Council officers have identified the South East Scotland Grouping (South East Scotland Alliance) as the most relevant grouping for its particular needs. This is due to the possibility of working with local authority partners where maximum learning can develop. The assessment of officers is that this is a more natural fit for Fife than other options. Also, the importance of linking in the educational collaboration to the economic development links being brought forward through the Edinburgh City Deal has been a major factor in the developing thinking of senior officers.

2.8.10 The governance report is unclear on the exact duties that will be expected of Chief Education Officers in future, or for how these duties might align with Regional Improvement Collaborative Directors. This is an area that will require to be described carefully to align national and local political oversight to work effectively.

60

2.9 Key Issue – Responsibility of the employer

2.9.1 The Review makes clear that local authorities will continue to:

provide HR services for all school staff and respond to HR requests from headteachers;

be the employer of the education workforce within their schools and local authority early learning and childcare settings;

support the provision of early learning and childcare delivered by funded providers (in the private and voluntary sector) as well as local authority nurseries in various establishments to maximise its educational benefit to young children;

appoint headteachers with the appropriate involvement of parent councils.

2.9.2 This process is ultimately overseen by the Chief Education Officer in a local authority who will retain oversight of planning for schools and staffing overall. The local authority function to recruit staff is specifically defined in relation to the appointment of headteachers. The implication here is also that such staff are managed locally in terms of performance and conduct and that budget for headteachers is channelled through local authority funding. The expectation is that one of the new powers which is being given to headteachers is that they will select and recruit their own staff. This is a clear challenge to, and possibly criticism of, a number of existing generic local authority recruitment processes which circumscribe the opportunities headteachers have to recruit.

Implications

2.9.3 Managing complex recruitment processes for large numbers of schools, let alone disciplinary matters, and/or teacher transfers, or the management of staffing surplus, is challenging across the system, especially when employers are bound by a number of statutes which govern their actions. The response put into the initial consultation by the EIS argued strongly for local authorities to retain the employer role. This means that local authorities are seen, at this stage, by the trade unions as a support for their members and that discipline and grievance processes, for example, will require to be managed through some sort of local authority process. This suggests a direct line manager in a local authority oversees the work of headteachers.

2.9.4 Given the current challenges in planning future local authority budgets, it is difficult to discern the actual impact that such processes might have on the expectations placed upon local authorities as employers by any future legislation. Or, indeed, on the capacity of local authorities to meet the high expectations of them in terms of recruitment that the governance review establishes.

2.9.5 The practicalities of how these things would work in future local systems will require attention as the parliamentary process unfolds, as there is a possibility that relationships between headteachers expecting more autonomy and local authorities’ processes, driven by local capacity, which manage system-wide recruitment, may require to be managed.

61

2.10 Key Issue: Funding Arrangements/Financial Governance

2.10.1 The funding of schools by local authorities is seen to be a current weakness in the system, with the report citing too much local variation and lack of transparency. It cites the variation in cost per pupil of education locally and makes a case for consultation on fairer funding for schools.

2.10.2 The report argues: ‘In recent years, many education systems have moved towards decentralisation of school funding through the use of funding formulas. Under this approach, money for education in Scotland (or relevant parts of the education system) would be ring-fenced and go directly to schools, via the local authority. The total amount of money available to schools in an individual local authority could be calculated from the top down, determined by the current local government distribution calculation mechanism, or from the bottom up, based on the characteristics of the school population in that authority’.

2.10.3 The report notes the range of factors determining local funding models:

unit cost per child basis by a broad range of input variables, such as deprivation, rurality, etc; or

by providing a school allocation based on pupil numbers and historic spend, supplemented by additional funds reflecting particular needs,

services currently provided for and funded centrally by local authorities, for example additional support needs and capital spending, could either be included within that formula, or excluded from it.

It then states that ‘Portions of funding would be allocated directly to clusters and regions to support collaborative working and maximise the use of resources’.

2.10.4 A wide range of current practices are covered which are affected by the local authority budgeting process and local needs and agreements. It argues there is a lack of consistency in this area. The working assumption is that the variance in local processes has somehow added to an inconsistent picture. It continues: ‘While the OECD92 have found that a “well designed funding formula can be the most efficient, stable and transparent method of funding schools”, there is little direct evidence at present about the role and success of funding formulas in driving improved educational outcomes. In addition, moving towards a national funding formula could introduce unacceptable instability and inflexibility into education funding. We do not therefore intend to proceed with consulting on a fixed national funding formula’.

It would therefore appear there is no intention to have a national funding formula, however, there is a commitment to consult on fairer funding of schools.

2.10.5 One other key development in relation to the management of finance by schools is the stipulation in the report that all schools will have business managers, so as to enable headteachers to focus more on improving learning and teaching.

62

Implications

2.10.6 The report is clear that “business and HR functions should not be undertaken by education staff”. But this leaves many questions unanswered. The recruitment of staff, for example, is an HR function that the report says headteachers should have. The financial freedoms of the PEF are also placed upon headteachers. The articulation of these new powers to headteachers, with existing and planned future responsibilities of local authorities with regard to additional support needs or children who are looked after, will require further attention within the parliamentary process, which will take place in due course.

2.10.7 The local authority will require systems and staffing to manage these arrangements in future. The business manager will remain an employee of Fife Council. Specific stipulations regarding Home School Link Workers and Business Managers may require additional ring-fenced budgets.

The section on Fairer Funding raises a number of important questions:

1. How is a fairer funding arrangement to be arrived at? 2. To what extent will Scottish Government circumscribe local authority

spending on education through some mechanism in future? 3. How are further responsibilities for headteachers with regard to funding likely

to impact in future?

2.11 Key Issues: Statutory Duties

2.11.1 The report does not deal in detail with the other statutory responsibilities which sit with local authorities, which would have an impact on freedoms that the government seeks to ensure headteachers benefit from. There is therefore another set of issues which are important to flag up, which local authorities have statutory responsibility to oversee. These include Human Resources, Transportation, Procurement, Planning and Financial Governance, as well as Equalities legislation. Work has to be progressed across authorities and which will demand compliance from schools.

2.11.2 Furthermore, whilst the report opens up the prospect of clusters of schools working together collaboratively, there is still an expectation placed on schools that headteachers are appointed by local authorities, so it would seem that any Cluster Head or Executive Head arrangements would be planned for by the Local Authority, as the employer and under the powers delegated to Chief Education Officers.

Implications

2.11.3 The role of the local authority in planning provision for young people and providing services for schools needs to be clarified to establish exactly where the boundaries of responsibilities lie. For example, if headteachers have statutory duties for attainment, but this is seen as being part of the wider local authority duty to enable all children and young people to thrive, it will be important to see what controls are established in legislation regarding this.

63

2.11.4 The organisation of the role of the business manager is critical to ensuring that the wider statutory controls which are to remain with local authorities are effectively managed over time. Fife has a well-established model for business managers, which can be built on to enable these aspects to be managed. For example, the report suggests that local authorities are responsible for planning educational provision in local areas and for developing cluster headship models. Clarification about how this might work in practice is likely to be needed so as to avoid unintended consequences.

2.12 Key Issues: Changes to National Public Bodies

2.12.1 Education Scotland is given an enhanced role, with Regional Directors reporting direct to the national agency. The leadership elements from the GTCS standards and the development of leadership through SCEL will be amalgamated within increased powers for the national agency.

2.12.2 The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) is to be absorbed into a larger agency for a wider set of professional standards, to be called the Education Workforce Council for Scotland.

2.12.3 Education Scotland’s Chief Executive will also have a greater local reach as the Regional Improvement Board Directors report to that person.

Implications

2.12.4 There is a risk of overlap in processes of scrutiny for schools. Processes of Local Authority improvement scrutiny, linked to Headteacher performance, Regional Collaborative activity and Education Scotland inspection require to be coherent.

2.12.5 There is also a potential consequence from the increased powers to the national agency in that these will require to be managed effectively and in conjunction with Regional Improvement Collaboratives.

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 The following issues are offered for consideration:

The timescales described within the report for implementing these arrangements are ambitious

It is unclear how much the government might need to invest to implement these reforms and how much funding within local authorities will require to be used to enable the establishment of the Regional Improvement Collaboratives

There is a strong emphasis on parental involvement throughout the report, but it seems to rest at seeking to improve information on how the system works. It will be important to look at specific proposals which will be brought forward to support this policy intention

There will be a need for careful planning to ensure that local political oversight of education can be handled effectively

64

There is a potential for duplication in the envisaged system – consideration will need to be given to how different aspects of the future system articulate (Regional Collaboratives and Local Authorities both giving advice to schools)

Absolute clarity is needed as regards to what is in scope for the planning of Regional Improvement Collaboratives and the need to articulate with local systems already in place

The financial governance within the system requires further clarification.

3.2 At this point in time there are still many unanswered questions regarding the full implications arising from the Governance Review: Next Steps. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government, COSLA and ADES to help shape some of the detail wherever possible.

3.3 In Fife we have been moving, over a number of years, to a more localised model giving more ownership to Headteacher. Many of the suggested changes in the Governance Report should allow us to continue with our direction of travel but move some of this to be delivered on a regional as well as local basis.

Report Contact Derek Brown Head of Education & Children’s Services Rothesay House, Glenrothes Telephone: 03451 555555 ext. 480217 Email. [email protected]

65


29 August 2017

Agenda Item No. 8

Education Governance

Fair Funding to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education – Consultation Response

Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services Directorate)

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

This report is to outline the proposed feedback from Fife Council on the Scottish Government’s document ‘Education Governance, Fair Funding to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education, A Consultation.

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that the Committee: (a) comments on and approves the consultation feedback on the Fairer Funding Consultation. (b) authorises Officers to make such amendments to the consultation response as may be

necessary.


No resource implications


There are no legal or risk implications arising from this report.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA is not required as the report does not propose a change or revision to existing policies and practices.

Consultation

As a result of the timing of the consultation representatives from the Education & Children’s Services Directorate have contributed to the consultation questionnaire.

66

1.0 Background

1.1 The Scottish Government vision for Education is to ‘close the unacceptable gap in attainment between our most and least disadvantaged children and to raise attainment for all.’

1.2 The Scottish Government plans are set out in ‘Education Governance: Next Steps – Empowering Our Teachers, Parents and Communities to Deliver Excellence and Equity for Our Children’

1.3 The Scottish Government also states that it is ‘clear that, in order to deliver this transformational change, our education system must be underpinned by fair and transparent funding that puts schools at the heart of decision-making’. The way schools are funded ‘needs to recognise the crucial role of the school and support the collaborative and flexible culture we are seeking to develop.’

1.4 Therefore, the Scottish Government is seeking views on how we can ‘best use the resources we have available to deliver the best possible outcomes for all our children and young people.’

2.0 Conclusions

2.1 The Fife Council Respondent Information Form and Consultation Questionnaire has been enclosed as Appendix 1.

Appendices

1. Respondent Information Form and Consultation Questionnaire

Background Papers

Empowering Teachers, Parents and Communities to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/0.pdf

Education Governance: Empowering Teachers, Parents and Communities to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education – Analysis of consultation responses.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00521034.pdf

Education Governance: Next Steps - Empowering Teachers, Parents and Communities to Achieve Excellence and Equity for Our Children http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00521038.pdf

Education Governance: Fair Funding to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education – A Consultation


Report Contacts

Shelagh McLean Head of Education & Children’s Services Rothesay House Telephone: 03451 555555 ext. 444229 Email. [email protected]

67

APPENDIX 1

Education Governance: Fair Funding to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education – A Consultation

RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM

Please Note this form must be completed and returned with your response.

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Individual

Organisation

Full name or organisation’s name

Phone number

Address

Postcode Email

The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference:

Publish response with name

Publish response only (without name)

Do not publish response

We will share your response internally with other Scottish Government policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They may wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so. Are you content for Scottish Government to contact you again in relation to this consultation exercise?

Yes

No

Fife Council

Fife House North Street Glenrothes

03451 555555 Ext 444229

KY7 5LT

[email protected]

Information for organisations:

The option 'Publish response only (without name)’ is available for individual respondents only. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published.

If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report.

68

APPENDIX 1

Consultation questions

Question 1 (a) What are the advantages of the current system of funding schools?

In line with our most recent developments across Fife, this response is based on the firm belief that decisions about children’s learning should be taken within schools themselves, supported by parents and communities. In Fife, we are already working with our schools, Headteachers and teachers to deliver this empowerment, through creating the support systems at Local Authority level that facilitate improved delivery at school level. We work within the current funding arrangements to ensure that we make the best use of the resources we have available and to deliver opportunities for effective collaboration and professional learning. These are integral to our way of working and to delivering our vision of ‘Improving the life chances of all’, focussed around all of the Education & Children’s Services functions. The current system of funding allows the development of improvement practices at the local authority level, to support work in schools and develop consistency. In Fife this can be evidenced through our ‘improvement trios’; our focus on leadership, pedagogy and breaking the cycle of disadvantage; the development of the children and young people improvement collaborative; our approach to cluster development focussed on quality improvement; our leadership development programme; our teacher learning communities etc. all of which have been identified in the ‘Next Steps’ vision. The current system also supports our ability to operate within the wider Children’s Services approach, as well as with all other Council Services, and this construct is essential in achieving our aims for the children and young people of Fife. This ensures that we can engage with local authority colleagues, our partners and the third sector more easily than could be achieved through individual schools working independently. The current model also allows the delivery of significant economies of scale. The advantages of the current system of funding schools can be summarised as follows:

The delivery of the Devolved School Management (DSM) principles as well as the prioritisation of resource allocation to deliver equity at the level of the child, the school, the community and the Local Authority.

More scope to deliver and manage the presumption of mainstreaming and inclusion of ASN

The ability to focus on delivery of wider Children’s Services The ability to focus on local outcomes for early years, literacy, numeracy,

employability etc. The development of effective leadership, effective learning & teaching and

professional development at all levels The ability to deliver support through strategic partnerships Consistency of approach for self-evaluation and quality improvement processes Improved policy development and implementation Delivery of effective and efficient support services

Advocacy for Children

69

APPENDIX 1

(b) What are the disadvantages of the current system of funding schools?

Question 2 (a) What are the benefits to headteachers of the current Devolved School

Management schemes?

The OECD report on Scotland’s Schools highlighted significant strength within the Scottish Education System, however it also highlighted the areas where improvement could support the delivery of improved outcomes for our children and young people. This referenced the need for a strengthened ‘middle’ and also the variation in effectiveness and impact of local authorities. While we do not recognise see evidence of these in Fife, this would suggest that the ‘disadvantages’ within the current funding arrangements, could include:

Development of local policy that is not founded on evidence-based research Detachment of local community needs from strategic planning Organisation of public services around professional working rather than the

child/young person/family Scale – the size of the ‘middle’ (in both human and physical terms) must consider

local identity and be organisationally manageable to ensure the delivery of GIRFEC; sharing of best practice; consistency; support and challenge; while still delivering best value. There needs to be a clear line of sight between classroom outcomes and strategic planning.

Creation of ‘systems’ which do not reflect a holistic approach to services for children

Addition of layers of bureaucracy that are redundant Impact of financial constraints and increased demand for services (e.g. to meet the

needs of children with ASN)

The scope of the scheme enables devolution, to a local level, of the resources needed to allow a Headteacher to plan and make provision for services that require to be delivered at school level. However, it also provides protection for individual schools from the impact of costs (and savings) that are better applied to an appropriate cluster, area or Local Authority level. It is true that the criteria for devolving resources to a local level varies according to the characteristics of the council. However, key criteria are generally based around school roll, deprivation and rurality factors. This is consistent with the vision outlined in the 'Next Steps' document and the Fair Funding consultation document. The scheme is designed to ensure that these criteria are transparent and ‘owned’ by the main stakeholders i.e. elected members, headteachers, teaching staff and parents. All decisions about resource use at school level can already have regard to the actions that will best meet the needs of the school and its pupils and to inevitable judgements about what provides best value, drawing on corporate finance and procurement guidance. The DSM scheme also clearly sets out a Council’s policy on virement across budget areas

70

APPENDIX 1

(b) What are the barriers that headteachers currently face in exercising their

responsibilities under Devolved School Management? How could these barriers be removed?

and carry forward, encouraging the responsible use of this facility with due regard to corporate guidance. It separates out the costs associated with the support systems and specialist services ensuring that Headteachers are able to focus on the impact of learning and teaching, targeting available resources to developments in this area.

This question assumes that there are in fact ‘barriers’ that headteachers face in exercising their responsibilities under the DSM. However, at this time, in Fife, we do not understand what these might be. Our belief is that any ‘barriers’ are not specifically related to the design or principles of the DSM scheme itself. In the current economic climate, when the resources available are more limited, Headteachers do not have the same ability to plan for future investment and to utilise development opportunities, as they need to prepare for budget reductions. Three year indicative budgeting horizons, where appropriate and possible, would allow schools to manage their staffing over a period of years, within a clearer distribution framework. Headteachers would be able to anticipate pupil roll movements in most circumstances, although there would need to be flexibility to allow for unexpected changes. It is true that there are a series of defined and publicly available methodologies for allocating money from the Scottish Government to local authorities, and that there is no single approach from local authority to education and then to school level. However, within each Local Authority area, the methodologies are transparent and publicly available. If Local Authorities are to remain democratically accountable for improvement in outcomes then it is entirely right that they should be able to determine that methodology and that this could differ from another Local Authority in a completely different context. The issues that are evident for Headteachers, in deliviering on their responsibilities, relate to the constraints placed upon the Local Authority and schools by the national methodologies and policy priorities such as the pupil: teacher ratio, class size targets, the non-class contact time and working-time agreements etc. Removal of these types of constraints would support headteachers in exercising their responsibilities in ensuring that decisions about children’s learning and school life can be taken at school level. As recognised in the consultation document, increased devolution of budgets to school level is likely, potentially, to shape the role and activity of a Headteacher. The challenge in doing this would be to ensure that this development is good and right for children and good and right for Headteachers. Heateachers are not accountants, nor do the vast majority want to be. Headteachers were trained primarily as teachers. The vast majority want to focus on leading learning and teaching. Headteachers should be allowed to do

71

APPENDIX 1

Question 3 How can funding for schools be best targeted to support excellence and equity for all?

Question 4 (a) What elements of school spending should headteachers be responsible for

managing and why?

this in the simplest way possible, through the design of the most appropriate systems of support.

It is true that in some cases there could be greater accountability for outcomes for children in schools. Ring-fenced budgets at school level (i.e. building on the approach taken for PEF), could ensure that schools account for spend and outcomes. However, a significant degree of technical and professional knowledge would be required to do this. Where a direct funding model is used (i.e. providing for a Scotland-wide approach to the funding allocation) there is a danger that this could develop into a model where much resource is devoted to bureaucratic ‘assessment’ of young people simply for the purposes of attaching additional funding to them, rather than for the purposes of meeting needs. The most appropriate approach looks to define priorities and allocate resource fairly across schools, taking account of the key criteria, as outlined above and in the consultation document. This is already achieved through the current principles of DSM. At a general level:

Careful attention needs to be given to ensuring funding is diverted appropriately to help address those communities where our children face the biggest challenges in their lives. If an increasing responsibility and budget is devolved to schools how do we ensure they appropriately support the most vulnerable?

We need to remind ourselves that though we may appear to be talking about massive sums of money when it is aggregated nationally, the vast majority of these budgets are simply a reflection of the salaries of staff: almost none of this, currently, is ‘available’ to the Headteacher. In other words, without a significant real increase in funding at school level, through removing the constraints delivered through national priorities, there is little means for Headteachers to explore opportunities

There is – in the ASN sector – an appreciation of the support that ‘the centre’ provides. This is valued and there would be concern if this was lost. There would be a related concern about the capacity of Headteachers to be involved in legal cases, tribunals, disability discrimination work etc.

Fundamental to any scheme of devolved management must be the commitment to raising attainment and achievement. This commitment is embedded within the Fife Council Education and Children’s Services Directorate and school/establishment improvement plans. These plans provide the tools to assist the Service, schools and other educational establishments to realise their aims and objectives by prioritising developments and costing them over time. Decisions about priorities and the means of addressing them are enhanced within the

72

APPENDIX 1

scheme of devolved management giving greater flexibility to headteachers and other managers within a strong Fife Council strategic framework. Consultation is a key element in the process of devolved decision-making. Advice and support from all levels within the Directorate ensures that those decisions are supported by the expertise that resides in the Directorate as a whole. Appropriate review arrangements have been put in place in order to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme and to refine and develop it further over the coming years. The principles of devolved management are embedded in all that we do within the Service and it is important to recognise that the scheme can be updated as a consequence of annual budget deliberations at national level and within the Council. Any revised/new funding model, whether through a Headteacher Charter or more targeted funding, would in essence be largely formulaic in nature and all national and local budget deliberations would need to be able to be taken account of by individual establishments, without the current level of protection provided through economies of scale or local authority mechanisms. The Headteacher is already, and should remain, responsible for the selection and management of the teachers and support staff within their school. In Fife they also have flexibility to determine their management and support structures locally, within the confines of the locally negotiated frameworks, as agreed with the relevant trade unions. This flexibility, however, is diminished through the constraints of the national and local priorities e.g. class sizes, PTR, as well as the employment legislation, which means that there are often situations where individual staff need to transfer within/across schools in a Local Authority area. This causes Headteachers the most concern, however this will not be resolved through either model proposed in this consultation. If all resources are devolved, schools would be required to retain responsibility for the costs associated with surplus staff i.e. those requiring transfer, where there is no suitable position in the school, or elsewhere, or as a result of the fact that they have not been successful in securing an alternative post in another school. Placing sole responsibility for recruitment and selection at school level would require the future risk and associated costs to remain at school level and could consequentially lead to budget overspends and/or compulsory redundancy situations where school budgets reduce following reducing school rolls, curricular changes etc. This would also require Headteachers or clusters to have full responsibility for all supply and absence cover costs associated with their staffing model. Therefore, headteachers should retain responsibility for the permanent teacher, supply and probationer pay, as well as school support staff pay, associated with their devolved decisions. Headteachers should also retain responsibility for the training and development costs, school initiated repairs, travel expenses, fixtures and fittings, hire & lease of equipment, printing and photocopying, supplies and services as well as classroom resources. At this time, the headteacher is responsible for the purchase of supplies and services for the purpose of the school, but these purchases must conform strictly to appropriate standards and the policies of Fife Council’s Scheme of Delegation. This is the second area that causes headteachers most concern. There needs to be very clear and consistent advice and support for headteachers, to ensure that they can purchase, easily,

73

APPENDIX 1

(b) What elements of school spending should headteachers not be responsible for

managing and why?

the resources that they believe best meet the requirements of their school and pupils, while meeting the principles of best value. It should remain appropriate that some of services continue to be organised and managed at cluster or local authority level, however, where appropriate, may be devolved to a more local level. The most appropriate level of management of resources should continue to be determined in consultation with headteachers, trade unions and other council directorates/services.

Budgets within the Devolved Management Scheme are only one part of the overall financial management of the Service and it is important to recognise that there is a strong relationship between devolved and non-devolved budgets in maintaining a sound and robust financial strategy for Education Services. As we are aware, nearly half of Scottish Council budgets are currently spent on school education, with a significant proportion of this expenditure funding the salary costs of teaching and support staff. The DSM assumes that everything that can be devolved is devolved (i.e. with the exception for certain areas of expenditure that have historically not been considered suitable for devolution and have been identified in the consultation document as outwith the immediate scope of the review. The following elements that have been identified as those that Headteachers should not be responsible for therefore recognises that the following areas of expenditure are outwith the scope of this review:

Capital expenditure, including all PPP/PFI costs; Central support services e.g. English as an additional language support,

hearing, visually impaired services, educational psychology services; School meals; Bursaries, clothing and footwear grants; Expenditure supported by central government specific grants, where it is

explicit that the purpose is to support council wide initiatives; Home-to-school transport; Premature retirement costs; Centrally funded support for children and young people who require significant

additional support whether from education (e.g. auxiliary support, specialist aids and appliances) or from other agencies (e.g. health services);

Education Maintenance Allowances; Council contracted work on managing the School Estate where applicable; School security running costs.

The existing methodology takes into account the fact that many local authorities now provide a mixed economy of services which are procured and delivered on a strategic, shared service basis to create efficiencies and reduce costs. Therefore, given the challenging financial climate, it is appropriate that services can continue to be shared or procured on a council wide basis instead of being available as resources required to be devolved at a local level.

74

APPENDIX 1

(c) What elements of school spending are not suitable for inclusion in a

standardised, Scotland-wide approach and why?

Any funding model, at Scottish Government and/or Local Authority level, must consider

o Total numbers of children o Spread of SIMD profiles o ASN - the formula to be used needs to be able to reflect the additional and

complex needs of children and young people with additional support needs. o Child Poverty data o Total numbers of staff required o Arrangements of support service functioning o The variability of Scottish geography e.g. rurality

A key factor is that poverty affects individuals and therefore all schools. We need to ensure that we reflect on any lessons learned from direct funding in England and also Health & Social Care. Any move towards a wider national model will need to ensure we develop consistent levels of provision – levels of PSA support to school, special school provision, numbers of Educational Psychologists, refugees etc., etc. Any funding model must give headteachers and schools maximum flexibility. The additional areas of expenditure that should not necessarily be managed by headteachers, would include such as elements of additional support for learning that cannot easily be broken down to school level, as they would tend to bring unnecessary and unproductive bureaucracy were the funding to be devolved. In addition, there are other areas of expenditure that are not devolved as the council needs to protect its schools from unacceptable levels of risk e.g. utility costs, examination fees.

The consultation paper states the intention to mandate and bring consistency and transparency across Scotland to:

The proportion of funding to be allocated directly to schools The proportion of funding to be allocated to particular areas of spending The way in which funding responsibilities are held and shared between schools,

local authorities, regional improvement collaboratives and others the decisions that local authorities take in allocating funding to schools, by

bringing consistency to the formulas they use and the factors they take into account in allocating budgets, reflecting need and overarching policy aims;

the financial role and responsibilities of headteachers; and the training and support headteachers can expect to receive from local

authorities and regional improvement collaboratives. The currently agreed national DSM guidelines provide the framework for the delivery of this intention, therefore, with regards to school spending, there would not be any additional areas that would not be suitable for inclusion. However, additional revenue expenditure e.g. non domestic rates, refuse collection, catering and cleaning, carbon etc., which does not directly impact on outcomes for children, must be reflected in the overall funding for local authorities, but would not lend itself to inclusion in a standardised approach for school spending.

75

APPENDIX 1

Question 5 (a) What would be the advantages of an approach where the current system of

funding schools is largely retained, but with a greater proportion of funding allocated directly to:

1. Schools; 2. Clusters; or 3. Regional Improvement Collaboratives?

(b) What would be the disadvantages of an approach where the current system of

funding schools is largely retained, but with a greater proportion of funding allocated directly to:

1. Schools; 2. Clusters; or

3. Regional Improvement Collaboratives?

The principles of any funding model should reflect the route of funding, through Local Authorities, to ensure local accountability for decisions. Consistent and transparent funding does not necessarily mean that this should rest with individual schools. Devolved management already provides for delegation of managerial responsibility to the most appropriate level. Whilst this results in the majority of the available resources being delegated to individual school/establishment level, due account must be given to certain services where an individual school/establishment’s needs cannot be reasonably predicted from the outset, or where they relate to the needs of an individual child or young person. The existing DSM scheme is designed to empower headteachers to meet local needs and deliver the best possible outcomes for young learners, in line with the objectives of Curriculum for Excellence, GIRFEC and the Early Years Framework. Moreover, the national guidance intended to ensure that existing best practice in relation to the operation of DSM Schemes became standard practice across the country, based on the core values of subsidiarity, openness, transparency and local accountability. The further development of this standard practice should be the focus. Therefore, the advantages of maintaining the current system of funding, even without any greater proportion of funding allocated directly to schools, would be that these aims can continue to be met, while schools and local authorities can continue to be able to deliver appropriate support for individual children, as well as best value requirements. A clearly defined funding model at national level, that supports the current clearly defined funding models in place at a local level through DSM, would provide the real advantage. This would need to include formulae that are responsive or flexible enough to respond to change and could include greater support at a national level for services skilled in building capacity and creativity of education staff locally.

The significant factor is scale, and the need to deliver efficiency without ‘spreading resources too thin’. There have been real concerns relating to the lack of reference to additional support needs – or indeed GIRFEC – within the governance review. There is a distinct lack of reference to the vulnerable, disabled, looked after and ASN populations. This is a significant gap. There require to be discrete services that can only be viable at an authority/regional level.

76

APPENDIX 1

Question 6 The Scottish Government’s education governance reforms will empower headteachers to make more decisions about resources at their school. What support will headteachers require to enable them to fulfil these responsibilities effectively?

Question 7 What factors should be taken into account in devising accountability and reporting measures to support greater responsibility for funding decisions at school level?

We need to ensure that in these discussions we do not lose sight of this provision. These services must be protected and if devolved to schools how do we ensure the services they require infrequently are protected? Additionally, more advantaged and well informed parents tend to have a ‘louder voice’ and are more likely to drive access to support resources at the expense of more disadvantaged families – scrutiny of the tribunal system already demonstrates this. The fact that there are a significant number of ‘high tariff’ expensive specialist placements for some ASN & LAC pupils - clear governance procedures would be required regarding responsibilities and how these would be accessed, who would pay, who would monitor and quality assure practice to ensure equity of access to appropriate support & that the young person’s needs were being appropriately met The aim must be to ensure that Headteachers are leaders of learning, not administrators. This model is unlikely to achieve this. Many of the inconsistencies and current difficulties have more to do with diminishing resources and diminishing skills, particularly of highly specialised staff who have the competencies and skills needed to deliver improvements. This is during a time where increased awareness and knowledge has increased demand for services. Core services at local authority level have had to be eroded while funding has been allocated, at times, in a piecemeal way direct to schools. By targeting resources towards the most vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils in the population, educational outcomes are more likely to improve for all, saving on financial spend in the longer term.

It is most essential, when embarking upon significant change, that there is the capacity to deliver reform i.e. that the reform is compatible with the skill set, capacity and qualifications of those required to deliver it and that there is the ability to deliver the change. Therefore this must be reflected within any funding model. Whilst headteachers hold the responsibility for budget and expenditure for their school other key members have support roles to the headteacher/school. The role of these key support services will become even more critical and will need to be fully recognised within the funding model. The role of the business manager is a pivotal role in supporting headteachers.

We need to ensure that the outcomes of this review are in the real interest of all our children and young people.

77

APPENDIX 1

Question 8 Do you have any other comments about fair funding for schools?

The OECD report identifies a need to strengthen local accountability therefore it would seem appropriate to ensure that any proposed changes reflect upon further analysis of the OECD findings. Based on the available evidence, Fife is currently performing well. Fife is already an enabling Authority that strengthens the middle tier, empowers local parents and children, delivers high quality learning and teaching and is closing the attainment gap. There needs to be consideration given to the right or optimum scale of success and to the time to ensure that system and culture change develop together e.g. the rate of change. Regardless of which funding model is progressed, extensive checks and balances must be built into any governance system to ensure the most vulnerable are not excluded from mainstream schools and communities or denied access to appropriate support because of other competing demands The role, place and impact of Trade Unions is not recognised in the consultation paper. We should be mindful of this before identifying solutions about how best to ‘fix’ the system. Much of the dialogue and interaction around the big decisions in education in Scotland involve negotiation and dialogue with Trade Unions at a national level. The impact of this is then felt locally across Scotland. Once again, headteachers are not accountants, nor do the vast majority want to be. Headteachers were trained primarily as teachers. The vast majority want to focus on leading learning and teaching. Headteachers should be allowed to do this in the simplest way possible, through the design of the most appropriate systems of support. Any accountability and reporting measures devised to support greater responsibility for funding decisions at school level must be streamlined, simple and minimise the workload of all colleagues involved, most importantly the Headteacher. These mechanisms must be linked to improvements in performance and most specifically to improvements in the outcomes for all of our young people.

It is clear that unless poverty and its impact is tackled we will not see the overall improvement in outcomes that we aspire to. Across a range of measures, levels of child poverty in Fife are high by national standards and there is evidence of a growing trend in the number of children who are living in poverty, or are vulnerable or disadvantaged for other reasons. People lie at the heart of successful Children’s Services and a clear focus on ‘the child’ is key to ensuring improved outcomes for children, young people and families. This is reflected in:

the rounded nature of wellbeing for children and young people if they are to develop their full potential.

the fundamental role of Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) as a way of developing this wellbeing successfully.

the central importance of partnership and collaborative working in making this happen.

78

APPENDIX 1

Furthermore, as research clearly and consistently shows, better children’s services are achieved by improving the quality of resources. Effective professional development and practice, improved classroom practice, and proportionate, staged intervention have been repeatedly shown as the key factors in improving outcomes for children and young people. We recognise that the recent publications i.e. PISA and CfE declarations, at a national level, identify challenges that we must address collectively. We also recognise that the landscape is complex and that the information contained in these publications must be considered in context. Therefore, we will continue to use this information, in conjunction with all of the additional data we collect and hold, to identify the approaches to delivering systemic improvement across Fife, and Scotland.

All of this is being achieved through the current ‘system’ and the funding arrangements in place, and is responding to the OECD call for ‘the collective autonomy of schools to be enhanced, working together under district (LA) control, and of districts working together within the wider system, to generate and drive change’. For example, research and national policy confirms that early intervention, prevention and addressing inequalities is integral to giving all children the best start in life. In response, the development of our Family Nurture Approach (FNA) has delivered a step change to improvement of outcomes and to closing the gap for families, through a transformational change programme. This has been supported through the significant local investment, of £7.8 million, to support the early years preventative programme. The outcomes are an example of the benefits that Fife is seeing as a result of effecting change based on clear evidence that the change would improve provision of services, using local democratic authority and decision making to invest in areas of priority and that level. In considering any future change to funding models it is important to identify the factors that are influencing the change and the evidence or research that supports the methodology adopted to effect the change. We do accept that, at a national level, there are inconsistencies. If this is the premise for change, then we need to identify what will improve this. In considering those nations towards the top of the PISA ranking it is difficult to identify ‘common funding arrangements’. This might suggest that ‘funding’ arrangements are significantly less important in achieving excellence and equity in an education system than putting the focus other factors such as collaboration, leadership at every level and comprehensive early years interventions with a ‘joined up’ approach to early years and pre-birth services. Therefore, the question we should be asking ourselves is how do we ensure we focus on these without introducing even more system change, which risks increasing pressure on the ‘system’ and, importantly Headteachers, further?

We must use our existing strengths and build upon these. This could be achieved through the investment of time and coordination of activities, but does not require the creation of additional or new systems of bureaucracy.

79


29 August 2017

Agenda Item No. 9

National Improvement Framework – Fife Education and Children’s Services Directorate Local Plan

Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services Directorate)

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

This report is to inform committee of the requirements regarding Improvement Planning for schools and Education Authorities as described within the Standard’s in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 as well as the accompanying statutory guidance.

The report provides a drafted plan for discussion and agreement to serve as the Education and Children’s Services Directorate (ECSD) Improvement Plan for 2017 - 2020

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that the Committee:

Note the requirements for improvement planning as outlined in this report

Approve Fife’s (ECSD) Improvement Plan to be submitted to Scottish Government for September 2017

Approve the inclusion of all elements of the Education and Children’s Services Directorate (education, children and families social work and criminal justice) to create a Directorate Plan for 2017/18


There are no resource implications arising from this report.


The Education and Children’s Services Improvement Plan must meet the requirements as laid out in Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016

Impact Assessment

An impact assessment has been carried out in relation to the improvement priorities.

Consultation

Extensive consultation has been carried out as part of the Children’s Services Plan which formed the basis for the E&CS Directorate Improvement Plan. This has involved surveys, focus groups, conferences and engagement sessions with children and young people, staff and parents.

80

1.0 Background

1.1. In Fife we have been producing School Improvement Plans for many years and the process is well embedded in a school’s improvement work. An Education Service Plan has also been in existence for many years in Fife and the new guidance helps us to develop our approach to improvement planning further.

1.2. Improvement planning for schools and education authorities as described within the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 as well as the accompanying statutory guidance, require local authorities and schools to meet a range of requirements.

1.3. A summary of the requirements for Education Authority Improvement Planning:

Education Authorities must prepare and publish an annual plan

The plan must describe steps to be taken to reduce inequalities of educational outcome experienced by children and young people as a result of socio-economic disadvantage

To take account of the National Improvement Framework ( currently 4 key priorities are equity, attainment, wellbeing and employability)

Include the educational benefits coming from the implementation of the plan

Plan must be published in August each year

Plan must be submitted to Scottish Government in September each year

There is no given format for the plan

1.4. A summary of the requirements for School Improvement Planning (SIP):

School Improvement Plans must be produced on an annual basis

School Improvement Plan reports should be produced annually

The responsibility for production of the plan lies with the Head Teacher

Consultation must be undertaken with a range of key stakeholders

The SIP should outline how this consultation will take place

The SIP must take account of the education authority’s annual plan

There is no set format for the plan

1.5. The approach outlined aims to improve:

The quality and availability of information available to children, young people, parents and teachers

The quality of information available to support education authorities and Community Planning Partnerships in planning and delivering services

The quality of information available to support the development of national education policy

81

The coherence of the approach to planning and reporting across the education system as a whole.

1.6. This new Scottish Government Guidance has been used to inform local guidance for schools in Fife on how to undertake the School Improvement Planning process with a view to meeting the requirements of the statutory guidance and being a useful tool to drive improvement in each individual school. Central to the guidance for schools is to use a self-evaluative ongoing process supported by the Frameworks, ‘How Good Is Our School? 4’ and ‘How Good Is Our Early learning and Childcare?’

2.0 Context

2.1 As part of the Fife Community Planning Partnership we align our ECSD Improvement Plan to the appropriate key priorities within the Fife Children’s Services Plan and work with partners to improve outcomes for our children, young people and their families. The Children’s Services plan can be found at fifedirect.org.uk/csplan for further information. The multi-agency group, Children in Fife, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Children’s Services Plan and it reports to the Fife Partnership Board on progress made.

2.2 The Education and Children’s Services Directorate Plan will span the same period as The Children’s Services Plan 2017-2020 but an annual Report and a revision of the ECSD Plan will be required on an annual basis. Planning only for one year can feel restricting and in order to scope out our 3 year vision the plan is set out to cover a 3 year period.

2.3 The ECSD Improvement Plan is broken into the following sections:

Our Purpose – Who are we and what is our plan for?

Our Context – What is our context and levers for improvement?

Our Performance – What does our current performance look like?

Our Vision for 2020 – What do we want to achieve?

Our Priorities for Improvement – What will we do?

Our Organisational Structure – What do we look like?

Our Delivery Plans – What actions will we take?

Our Alignment of the Plan – How do we link to wider planning?

2.4 The ECSD Improvement Plan gives the whole Directorate a focus for delivering improved outcomes for our children, young people and their families. It allows us to structure and deliver our services in a way that best meets the needs of our local communities.

2.5 The full ECSD Improvement Plan can be found at appendix 1

82

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 This ECSD Improvement Plan has been drawn together over a period of time, taking account of surveys (parentwise, pupilwise, staffwise, key improvement survey, The Reality Check), consultation as part of the development of the Children’s Services Plan using ‘The Place Standard’, focus group discussions, and the performance scorecard results from the previous plan. School staff have also had an opportunity to respond to a draft version of the ECSD Improvement plan and were consulted on the vision and improvement priorities prior to preparing their own school improvement plans. National drivers have also been considered to try to future proof the work that is being delivered through this plan.

3.2 Following approval of the ECSD Improvement Plan at the Education and Children’s Services Committee the ECSD Improvement Plan will be submitted to the Scottish Government and will be used by the ECS Directorate to drive forward improvement through the key delivery aspects of the plan. A report on the impact of the plan will be brought forward to the ECS Committee in August/September 2018.

Appendices: Appendix 1 – Education and Children’s Services Directorate Plan 2017-2020

Documents used in preparing this report:

Standard’s in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000

Education (Scotland) Act 2016

Statutory Guidance – Planning and Reporting March 2017

2017 National Improvement Framework

Governance Review; Next steps

Report Contact Carrie Lindsay Executive Director Education and Children’s Services Fife House Telephone: 03451 555555 ext. 480218 Email. [email protected]

83

84

Page | 2

Foreword

Our purpose within the Education and Children’s Services Directorate, Improving Life Chances for All, gives us a focus for how we continue to work together to improve outcomes for our children, young people, their families and local communities across Fife. We developed this purpose together and that gives us a real sense of owning collectively what we need to do to see real improvements at a personal, team and organisational level.

Our delivery of services is wide ranging – early learning and childcare, primary education, secondary education, Children and Families social work service and Criminal Justice Service. For some this could seem a Directorate of many parts but we are determined to become better connected and ensure that we put our children, young people and their families at the centre of everything we do. Our service delivery must build our services to meet the needs of all but, in particular, we must strive to reduce inequalities and improve outcomes for the most vulnerable.

The shared language across Children’s Services that is provided by Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) allows us to better understand how we can collaborate more effectively, making the right connections and knowing that we are making a difference. The wellbeing of our children and young people is of paramount importance to us and we know that listening to our children, young people and their families is the best place to start when we make improvements.

This is a time of significant change, but this change provides an opportunity to improve and be more successful. We must aim to be forward looking and ambitious, believing that doing things differently can in fact lead to better outcomes. Our focus in this ambitious plan – that contains a clear vision, clear aims and well defined delivery plans with measurable outcomes – will allow us all to see the part we all play in making a difference for those we work with, day in and day out.

I know that we have very dedicated and talented staff throughout our Directorate and I look forward to listening, working and learning together over the life of this plan. I hope that you feel part of this plan and you are as proud as I am to play your part in Improving Life Chances for All.

Carrie Lindsay Executive Director

1. Our Purpose

85

Page | 3

Why do we have a Directorate Improvement Plan?

The Directorate’s Improvement Plan 2017-20 is a key document for the Directorate, as we work to achieve our purpose: Improving Life Chances for All.

The Improvement Plan will help the Directorate to improve outcomes for children, young people, families and communities in Fife, and to fulfil a range of duties and legislative responsibilities. It will:

Deliver the National Improvement Framework, ensuring a continued improvement in attainment and a further closing of the attainment gap in Fife.

Lead Fife Council’s contribution to the implementation of GIRFEC and the delivery of Fife Children’s Services Plan 2017-20.

Contribute to community empowerment, and help to support Local Outcome Improvement Planning in Fife’s diverse communities.

Support the ongoing self-evaluation and improvement of children’s services and criminal justice social work services in Fife, supported by inspection and best value audit of services by national agencies.

1. Our Purpose

86

Page | 4

What can we do to improve life chances for all?

The Education and Children’s Services Directorate Plan sets out an evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for children, young people and families, which has been informed by research on education, child development and social care, and by the work of national commissions and working groups. This page provides a brief summary of some of this evidence.

At the heart of the Plan is a recognition that significant inequalities of outcome exist in the life chances of children and young people, with the most disadvantaged and vulnerable having life chances that are significantly poorer than the most advantaged. The issue of equity has been well evidenced through the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Growing Up in Scotland Survey, and the educational analysis of the OECD.

Early intervention and prevention have a key role to play in addressing these issues, as the Christie Commission recognised, amongst many others. To achieve success with a preventative approach – and to sustain the improvements achieved into later life – requires effective assessment and monitoring of the child’s needs and development, an understanding of effective approaches to improvement (for example, as summarised in the Sutton Trust/Education Endowment Foundation Toolkit) and a research-focussed approach to the implementation of strategies and interventions. The work of educationalists (including Hattie, Coe and many others) recognises the importance of professional development in supporting this type of improvement in a school context, as does the Donaldson Report into the teaching profession. The work of the Christie Commission also reflects the importance of staff skills for improvement in a wider context.

The work of the commission on Developing the Young Workforce has reviewed a range of evidence about outcomes for young people as they make the transition to working life. Key amongst their findings is a recognition of the continuing need for parity of esteem for vocational and academic routes to employment, supporting the range of skills needed in the future economy.

In adopting a preventative approach for the most vulnerable, the Directorate recognises the importance of attachment for the developing child (a key factor that is widely recognised). Supporting attachment is a key principle underpinning the design of services for our most vulnerable children and young people.

2. Our Context

87

Page | 5

What challenges do we face in trying to improve outcomes?

Fife has relatively high levels of child poverty. It ranks 7th of Scotland’s 32 local authorities for the number of pupils registered for free school meals, within both the primary and secondary school sectors. It also ranks 9th of 32 local authorities for child poverty as measured by the HM Revenue and Customs local measure of child poverty.

The high level of child poverty in Fife is significant, as – in many cases – there is a strong correlation between levels of child poverty and the educational outcomes of children and young people (e.g. attainment, attendance and exclusion) and their life chances (e.g. whether a child is looked after or not, post-school destinations).

Given the high levels of child poverty in Fife, early intervention and prevention are particularly important – in order to ensure that cycles of poverty and disadvantage are broken.

Demographic changes also present challenges for the coming years, with an ageing population, but also an increase in young families with children across Fife.

Primary school rolls have increased significantly over recent years. In consequence of this increase, secondary school rolls are projected to increase significantly over the next 10 years (increasing by over 12.5% over the period 2016-26). Primary school rolls are projected to remain broadly unchanged over the same period.

The increases expected in the size of these child populations will increase the financial pressures on the school system and on children’s services, generally.

2. Our Context

88

Page | 6

How does national policy support improvement?

The National Improvement Framework for Schools

In December 2016 the Scottish Government published the 2017 National Improvement Framework (NIF) and Improvement Plan for Scottish Education, which are designed to help deliver the twin aims of excellence and equity with a focus on four priorities:

Improvement in attainment, particularly in literacy and numeracy (attainment) Closing the attainment gap between the most and least disadvantaged children (equity) Improvement in children and young people’s health and wellbeing (wellbeing) Improvement in employability skills and sustained, positive school-leaver destinations for all

young people (employability)

The NIF also recognises the importance of six drivers for improvement; highly effective leadership (leadership), the quality of learning and teaching (professionalism), the assessment of pupil progress (assessment), parental and family engagement (engagement), intelligent use of data (performance), good use of evaluation and effective use of performance information (improvement).

The four national priorities (attainment, equity, wellbeing and employability) and the six drivers for improvement (leadership, professionalism, assessment, engagement, performance and improvement) are not just relevant to education but to all areas of the Directorate’s work.

The gathering of data around achievement of the four priorities and delivery of the drivers for improvement will allow us to see progress being made in the outcomes that matter for our children and young people, families and local communities.

2. Our Context

89

Page | 7

Education Governance

In June 2017 the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, announced how the Scottish Government intends to take forward its review of Education Governance. This Next Steps paper has a clear message that teachers and headteachers should have more power over decisions on learning and teaching, staff selection and management structures. The Next Steps paper also outlined a move towards Regional Improvement Collaboratives, comprised of local authority staff from the regional grouping and staff from Education Scotland.

In Fife we have been moving towards an empowered and collaborative culture for a number of years and therefore are well placed to consider how best we can improve further under these new arrangements. Our Regional Collaborative, South East Scotland Improvement Collaborative (SESIC) will give us opportunities to provide a coherent focus of improvement and allow us to further develop our collaborative working.

These changes to Education Governance are in the early stages of development but it is clear that this will be a significant change to the way we work within Fife and across the wider region to deliver improvements within education.

2. Our Context

90

Page | 8

Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC)

GIRFEC is Scotland’s approach to supporting children, young people and their families and recognises the importance of promoting wellbeing across all of the eight wellbeing indicators (ensuring that children are: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included). GIRFEC also ensures that there is a focus on the rights of children and young people, as set out in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

GIRFEC underpins the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which provides the legal framework for wider children’s services, including looked after children, through care and aftercare and the delivery of early learning and childcare (ELC).

Both GIRFEC and the UNCRC recognise the importance of prevention, as a basis for significantly improving the life chances of children and young people. This is also recognised in the report of the Christie Commission, which provides an evidence base for shifting resources to support a delivery model based on prevention and earlier intervention.

The Community Empowerment Act promotes a localised delivery model, ensuring that we engage with and listen to local communities, as we change and develop our services and areas of priority.

GIRFEC, the UNCRC, the outcomes of the Christie Commission, the Community Empowerment Act and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 fit well with the current direction of the Directorate. Continuing to implement these key national policies will allow us to continue improving life chances for Fife’s children and young people.

2. Our Context

91

Page | 9

52

11

37

8

19

73

13 and under (normal)

14 ‐ 16 (border‐line)

17 & over (high risk)

How we are improving Early Years and Health & Wellbeing

Improving Early Years and Health and Wellbeing was a priority in the Directorate Plan 2014-17. This page reviews the progress that we have made in this area.

What have we done over the period 2014-17?

In line with national policy, we have worked to provide more flexible, high quality Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) for parents and carers.

We have invested significant resources in developing a Family Nurture Approach, to improve support for child development, attachment and early learning.

We have worked with partners to implement Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) approach and to improve physical and emotional health and wellbeing.

How have outcomes improved during this period?

Our young children are increasingly ready to learn. Achievement for Literacy and Numeracy in Primary 1 shows improvement year on year.

The Joint Children’s Services Inspection (published in 2016) has given a positive endorsement that our implementation of GIRFEC is well underway.

There has been a sustained and significant reduction in pregnancies in young people, as a result of approaches to address risk taking behaviours and health inequalities.

What challenges remain to be addressed?

In line with national policy, we will continue to expand the provision of high quality Early Learning and Childcare, through our blueprint for 2020.

We have developed services to support family engagement in child development and parenting skills (e.g. Incredible Years, the Mellows). These now need to be better integrated to achieve a greater impact within local communities.

We will implement the Our Minds Matter Framework, to better support the Mental and Emotional Wellbeing of children and young people.

All Pupils

Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Literacy % █ 78.9 89.9 92.7 94.1 94.1Numeracy % █ 83.8 91.0 93.9 95.2 96.2

70

80

90

100

The impact of the Incredible Years programme, comparing assessment scores before and after

participation in the programme.

After (%)

Before (%)

3. Our Current Performance

The proportion of children secure within the early level of Curriculum for Excellence by the end of P1.

92

Page | 10

How we are improving Educational Outcomes

Improving Educational Outcomes was a priority in the Directorate Plan 2014-17. This page reviews the progress that we have made in this area.


We have developed and implemented a Strategy for Professional Learning.

We have further implemented successful literacy and numeracy strategies, supported by the work of the Pedagogy Team to improve learning and teaching in Fife’s classrooms.

We have supported the delivery of the National Improvement Framework across Fife’s schools.


There has been a sustained improvement in achievement for literacy and numeracy in primary schools.

There has been a significant improvement in literacy and numeracy for pupils in the senior phase.

A significant number of staff have been actively involved in a wide range of professional learning opportunities.


We need to achieve further improvement in attainment for numeracy amongst school leavers.

We will support the continuing devolution of responsibility for quality improvement to school cluster level.

We will adopt an even more coordinated approach to self-evaluation across the Directorate to help drive further improvement.


Proportion of pupils achieving a National 5 pass in English by the end of stage S4.

Proportion of pupils secure at the expected level of CfE by the end of key stages P4 and P7.

All Pupils

Year 2013 2014 2015 2016Literacy % █ 80.6 83.5 85.1 86.4Numeracy % █ 81.8 84.4 86.1 87.2

70

80

90

100

Year 2013 2014 2015 2016S4 Pupils % █ 44.1 50.3 51.4 56.2

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

93

Page | 11

How we are improving Employability

Improving Employability was a priority in the Directorate Plan 2014-17. This page reviews the progress that we have made in this area.


We have worked with partners across Fife to improve Careers Information Advice and Guidance activities

We have engaged partners from business in school education, allowing young people a better understanding of work.

We have improved the number and quality of programmes of learning for young people making transitions from the Senior Phase to life beyond school


Developing the Young Workforce has been embedded within the approach of schools to curriculum planning, helping to ensure that pathways to work are increasingly relevant to all young people.

Increasing numbers of young people are now leaving school with the key qualification sets needed to ensure that they have access to a wider range of opportunities.

An increasing proportion of young people are entering positive destinations. What challenges remain to be addressed?

We will work with partners at a national and local level to improve the journey of our 15-24 year old learners, through a range of educational routes into employment.

We need to ensure that young people are better supported to achieve and sustain positive destinations from school, particularly those facing multiple barriers to learning and opportunities in later life.


The proportion of young people achieving a pass at Higher by the end of stage S5

Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016S5 Pupils % █ 41.4 42.3 44.8 50.9 51.5

30

40

50

60

The proportion of school leavers entering a positive destination from school

Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16Fife % █ 89.6 89.7 92.4 92.1 92.7National % █ 89.9 91.4 92.3 92.9 93.3

84

86

88

90

92

94

94

Page | 12

How we are improving Equity and Equality

Improving Equity and Equality was a priority in the Directorate Plan 2014-17. This page reviews the progress that we have made in this area.


We have further developed an evidence-based approach to professional development & school improvement, e.g. embedding Workshop for Literacy (a programme to break cycles of deprivation), supporting delivery of the Pupil Equity Fund.

We have worked to update and improve our approaches to supporting inclusion and nurture, e.g. Nurturing Schools, the De-escalation Training Pack.


There has been a significant closing of the attainment gap for literacy and numeracy in primary schools. The gap has been closed for a range of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, including: those living in SIMD deciles 1 and 2, looked after children, pupils registered for free meals.

There has been a significant increase in the numbers of school leavers achieving key qualification sets across all levels of attainment.

Headteachers and other leaders within the Directorate have a high level of confidence in the Directorate’s approach to improvement and in the systems of support for children and young people.


Further closing of the attainment gap will require a clear and sustained focus on individuals facing significant barriers to learning. The Pupil Equity Fund provides an important opportunity to address this challenge.

Levels of attendance for disadvantaged and vulnerable children are generally lower than those of their peers, and exclusions are higher. Improving levels of attendance and rates of exclusion for disadvantaged pupils remains a key focus for improvement.


The proportion of P1, P4 and P7 pupils achieving the expected level in reading within Curriculum for Excellence

Outcomes from the Key Improvement Survey of leaders across the Directorate

SIMD 1 & 2 SIMD 3 - 8 SIMD 9 & 102012 █ 70.2 78.8 87.72016 █ 87.4 89.2 92.8

Improvement % 17.2 10.4 5.1

50

60

70

80

90

100

Directorate ImprovementProportion of respondents who agreed that … … our vision of "improving life chances for all" has a positive influence on attainment and inclusion 99%

… the Directorate has the capacity to improve further 98%Systems of supportProportion of respondents who agreed that … … guidance and support are in place tto ensure fair and equal treatment of learners, parents, carers & 95%

… information is available on areas for improvement that is effective in supporting school improvement 94%

95

Page | 13

How we are Enhancing Outcomes for the Most Vulnerable

Enhancing Outcomes for the most Vulnerable was a priority in the Directorate Plan 2014-17. This page reviews the progress that we have made in this area.


The Directorate has developed and implemented a Children and Families Strategy. This has enhanced the capacity for early intervention and helped to ensure that further, more intensive intervention are avoided, wherever possible, including children becoming formally looked away from home.

We have reviewed the processes involved in managing high risk offenders to ensure that the greatest resource follows the greatest risk.


The Children and Families Strategy has had a significant impact: the proportion of looked after children who are in a home or kinship setting has increased; the number of looked after children has stabilised; through improved processes and better partnership working, the number of Child Protection Orders has reduced.

Educational outcomes for looked after children in Fife have remained generally above those achieved across the rest of Scotland.

We have helped more offenders to complete Community Payback Orders in 2015/16 than any other year.


We will seek to further implement the Children and Families Strategy, in line with the original strategic objectives and planned improvement plan.

We need to further improve the capacity for prevention, ensuring an effective response to families where children are at the “edge of care” .

We need to ensure that offending behaviour continues to be effectively challenged.


The proportion of children subject to a Child Protection Order

The number of looked after children, following implementation of the Children & Families Strategy

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

January2014

July 2014 January2015

July 2015 January2016

CPOs p

er 10,00

0 children

(3 m

th ru

nning average)

Fife Scotland

200

250

300

350

400

450

Purchased placem

ents

Pre‐strategy trend Actual

96

Page | 14

How we understand what children, young people, families and staff think about our services

The Education and Children’s Services Directorate aims to ensure that the views of children, young people, families and staff are actively sought, and are taken into account in decisions that affect individuals and with the design and delivery of services. The Directorate undertakes a range of surveys to establish the views of school pupils, parents/carers and staff. These include:

The Pupilwise survey, which captures the views of pupils, including Looked After Children and Young Carers in Fife schools.

The Parentwise survey, which gathers feedback from parents across a range of related questions.

The Staffwise and Key Improvement Survey, which collect the views of staff and leaders from across the Directorate.

These surveys inform self-evaluation and support service improvement. Over 23,000 children and young people, 3,100 parents and carers and 1,900 staff members completed the surveys undertaken in 2016.

The 2BHeard forum is a means by which Fife’s care experienced young people, aged 12 and over, can express their views about the services that they receive, and be assured that – through direct links to the Corporate Parent Board – these views will be listened to. Some of the young people are still in care and others are care-leavers.

In addition to the work undertaken directly by the Directorate, further evidence is collected via the Children’s Services Partnership. Most recently, a programme of engagement has been undertaken to inform the development of the Fife Children’s Services Plan 2017-20. Children and Young People across Fife were engaged in effective participation that identified emerging themes across all aspects of wellbeing. These themes have helped inform the key priorities for the 2017-20 Children’s Services Plan and this Directorate Plan. Consultation via an online survey has involved more than 2,500 children and young people, with more than 200 taking part in participation sessions.


97

Page | 15

What do we want to achieve?

The Directorate Plan is based on a vision for the future that is informed by: the evidence-base on how to improve outcomes for children and young people, and feedback from parents/carers, children, young people, families and staff on what matters.

Our Vision for 2020 is: to help ensure that Fife is a place where:

Children are happier and more secure

Children have better levels of achievement

Outcomes for children and young people are fairer

Children are healthier and more active

Young people are equipped for better life chances

Local communities are empowered and supported

In order to achieve our vision, we will focus available resources on six Priority Areas:

GIRFEC

Attainment

Equity

Wellbeing

Employability

Communities

These will provide a focus for improvement that delivers the National Improvement Framework for Fife’s schools, helps to implement Fife’s Children’s Services Plan 2017-20 and contributes to community empowerment through Fife’s Local Outcomes Improvement Plan.

4. Our Plan

98

Page | 16

In order to secure specific and achievable improvement within our six Priority Areas, we have identified twelve Priorities for Improvement. These are the outcomes where, current evidence shows, improvement is most urgently needed.

Strengthening the implementation of GIRFEC: Continuing to support better parenting skills through improved engagement with families Preventative, joined-up working in local communities Significantly improving attainment: More effective engagement and participation of children and young people in their learning Developing better learning and teaching in the classroom and beyond Further closing the attainment gap for the most disadvantaged Closing the attainment gap for pupils in the Broad General Education (BGE) Improving educational outcomes for looked after children Ensuring better health and wellbeing: Improving physical health and development Supporting physical and the emotional wellbeing of all children and young people, and particularly those most at risk Improving the employability skills and life chances of young people: Increasing the attainment of key qualification sets that lead to wider post-school opportunities Developing better pathways to positive post-school destinations Empowering and supporting local communities: Providing person-centred and collaborative services Preventing and reducing reoffending

4. Our Plan

99

Page | 17

How will we achieve our vision? The work required to achieve our vision are set out in the Action Plan for Improvement, summarised below. The following six pages give a more detailed account of our Action Plan for each individual area of improvement.

Strengthening the implementation of GIRFEC • Better targeting resources, in order to achieve a greater impact on children and families locally. • Consolidating the design of services available to meet local needs and improving the impact of our partnership working.

Focussing on the most effective ways to improve attainment and close the attainment gap • Ensuring more coherent and effective approaches to self-evaluation and improvement. • Supporting the continued improvement of, and achieving a greater impact from, learning and teaching.

Targeting services & resources to meet the greatest need • Better identifying and supporting the needs of all children, particularly the disadvantaged and the most vulnerable. • Consolidating and further developing our systems and support services, to better support those with the greatest needs.

Supporting more consistent approaches to improving health and wellbeing • Ensuring that our policies and strategies: promote health & wellbeing, encourage responsible attitudes and behaviours and

consistently support children to be active. • Ensuring that our service design and ways of working better support the emotional wellbeing of all children.

Developing our delivery model to improve the employability skills and the life chances of young people • Strengthening pathways to employability and other positive destinations for young people. • Offering a range of vocational and academic opportunities and experiences for all, which are valued equally.

Empowering and supporting local communities • Providing person-centred and collaborative services that are increasingly designed and delivered with the participation of

children, young people and families • Ensuring that our services are effective in supporting early intervention strategies that prevent and reduce reoffending.

5. Implementing Our Plan

100

Page | 18

Our Action Plan for Strengthening the Implementation of GIRFEC

Ref Strategic Goal Activities / Actions Outcome measure Owner

Better targeting resources, in order to achieve a greater impact on children and families locally

1A To deliver 1140 hours of flexible, high quality early learning & childcare

Extend provision for all children who require a flexible model of childcare, across Fife.

Improve quality of early learning and childcare settings.

Percentage of ES inspection results for early years provision that are above the national average

JP

1B To coordinate services in a joined up way to support families

Ensure family support services, are effective, streamlined and available locally when needed.

Clear structure of support available for families across Fife in place.

JP

Consolidating services available to meet local needs and improve the impact of our partnership working.

1C To improve GIRFEC approaches and practices in line with new legislative requirements

Provide information, training and practice development to improve GIRFEC processes and promote Child Protection key themes

Percentage of positive responses from Named Persons/Lead Professionals to GIRFEC survey

Young Carers Statements developed and in place for April 2018

JP

1D To ensure that families get the help they need when they need it

Developing early identification and response to need, through embedding the use of the child wellbeing pathway

Case file evaluation of impact of Child Wellbeing Pathway

DD

1E An integrated response to families in need with young children

Further developing the joint response strategy to vulnerable families with young children.

Number of young families receiving structured parenting programmes

Number of young families receiving intensive support arrangements

DD/JP


101

Page | 19

Our Action Plan for Significantly Improving Attainment and Further Closing the Attainment Gap

Ref Strategic Goal Activities / Actions Outcome measure Owner

Ensuring more coherent and effective approaches to self-evaluation and improvement

2A To increase pupil and parental participation in learning

Strengthen home-school partnerships and pupil voice. Increase in numbers of respondents to Pupilwise and Parentwise surveys and positive feedback from the surveys

JP

2B To ensure that we have an agreed, updated vision and strategy for raising attainment and closing the gap

Review and refresh our current approaches to both raising attainment and closing the gap

Ensuring a Fife-wide strategy, yet one which can be customised to ensure that local and specific challenges are being met

Positive feedback to our strategic approach in our leadership and staff surveys

Evidence that the strategy is having an impact from School Improvement Plans and feedback from school inspections

PMcN

2C To strengthen the Directorate’s overall approach to self-evaluation for improvement

Further develop the work of the Directorate Self-Evaluation Strategy Group, to improve: data and evidence about the Directorate’s impact; strategic analysis of key service issues; alignment with wider corporate and partnership processes.

Increased staff awareness of the impact that we have as an organisation

Outcome of self-evaluation of Directorate performance information, its fitness for purpose and impact.

PMcN/SMcL

Better focussing available resources on improving: learning & teaching in the classroom, and the learning environment

2D To improve learning progression across the Early Level

Create guidance for nursery and P1 staff to improve early years learning environments and approaches including play based approaches.

Increased CfE achievement in P1

JP

2E To ensure the positive impact of effective learning and teaching, is at the forefront of improvement

Ensure that the learning and teaching strategy is disseminated, adapted and used by practitioners

Support use of approaches to learning and teaching that are most likely to make the biggest difference to our children e.g. in terms of closing the gap

Evidence of impact of Fife’s learning and teaching strategy

Evidence from inspection activity that evaluations for QI 2.3 show signs of improvement

PMcN

2F To further improve the quality of the learning environment and the management of buildings and facilities

Design and build modern schools within the Education capital programme, including the Building Fife's Future programme, which puts children and learning at the centre. Issues of spare/lack of capacity, condition, suitability and efficiency of school and care buildings are addressed, including via use to accommodate the Early Years Strategy.

The strategy for a sustainable school estate is developed and implemented.

The Building Fife’s Future Programme is delivered in accordance with the plan.

SMcL


102

Page | 20

Our Action Plan for Targeting Services and Resources to Meet the Greatest Need Ref Strategic Goal Activities / Actions Outcome measure Owner Better identifying and supporting the needs of all children, particularly the disadvantaged and the vulnerable. 3A To ensure effective support

for children at risk of harm

Monitor, evaluate and review systems that undertake initial assessments of families to identify where children may be at risk. Improve system and process design where review identifies a need for improvement.

Sample case file evaluation of children on the child protection register

Percentage of repeat child protection registrations within 2 years

DD

3B To plan effectively for looked after children

Undertake a regular review of care planning arrangements for looked after children.

Increase in proportion of looked after children cared for within Fife

Percentage of children with a plan for permanence 10.5 weeks after becoming accommodated

DD

3C To ensure an effective response to families where children are at the “edge of care”

Reviewing and redesigning services that respond to families in urgent need, including out of hours and weekends, to ensure a more effective response.

Number of requests for support from the intensive community support panel

Number of families engaged with intensive support provision

DD

Consolidating and further developing our systems & support services to better support those with the greatest needs. 3D To ensure an integrated

response to children with disabilities and /ASN

Further developing the joint response strategy to ensure that an effective response is provided to children with disabilities additional support needs

Numbers of children receiving respite arrangements

Numbers of children in specialist residential provision

DD/SMcL

3E To further implement the Supporting Learners Strategy

Finalise the strategy for providing additional support for learners. Extend schools capacity for meeting all learners needs, through structural changes. Ensure that the new model provides all learners with appropriate support for their needs

Devolution of ASN provision to cluster and school level

Reduction in placements to DAS and ASCs

SMcL

3F To improve equity in participation, learning and educational outcomes

Support schools to implement the Scottish Attainment Challenge and Pupil Equity Fund.

Consolidate support services to schools, to ensure adequate provision for all disadvantaged pupils.

Evidence of improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils (closing of gap in outcomes between SIMD deciles 1 & 2 and SIMD deciles 9 & 10)

PMcN/SMcL


103

Page | 21

Our Action Plan for Ensuring Better Health and Wellbeing Ref Strategic Goal Activities / Actions Outcome measure Owner Ensuring that our policies and strategies: promote health & wellbeing, encourage responsible attitudes and behaviours and consistently support children to be active. 4A Improve approaches to reducing

obesity and increasing physical activity in children and young people

Develop a partnership approach impacting on healthy growth and development.

Proportion of children in P1 of healthy weight increases

Feedback from children and young people on opportunities to learn about healthy life choices (Pupilwise)

JP

4B To ensure that all children have access to appropriate opportunities for play and physical activity

Support provision of physical activity opportunities within school (PE, PEPAS, etc)

Further develop community based play opportunities that support and stimulate self-directed play.

PE hours from Scottish Government Survey Engagement numbers for community based

play opportunities (e.g. play rangers)

JP

4C To ensure a greater equity in health outcomes for children and young people

Ensure key health messages are shared with pupils experiencing risk/disadvantage, including sexual and mental health information and access to support services

Reduction in rates of pregnancies in young people.

JP

Ensuring that our service design and ways of working better support the emotional wellbeing of all children. 4D To improve the range of support for

emotional wellbeing

Implement with partners, the Our Minds Matter framework.

Reduction in number of referrals to CAMHS Improved uptake of support provided by

commissioned services

JP

4E To increase pupil and parental participation in the design and developmental of services to support wellbeing

Programme of consultation and participation to engage disadvantaged and vulnerable children and young people in policy and service design

Evidence of planning and policy changes arising from consultation and participation work (e.g. through 2B Heard)

DD/JP


104

Page | 22

Our Action Plan for Improving the Employability Skills and Life Chances of Young People

Ref Strategic Goal Activities / Actions Outcome measure Owner Strengthening pathways to employability and other positive destinations for young people

5A To improve support for pupils leaving school at the end of S4 /5

Establish Named Persons for 16-18 year old school leavers

Increase in numbers of young people accessing the Named Person Service after leaving school.

JP

5B To develop a Culture of Enterprise in all Fife classrooms

Expand the Fife Council Culture of Enterprise offering to schools Roll out training programme from Scotland’s Enterprising Schools

Increase the numbers of young people engaging with Culture of Enterprise programmes

Increase the numbers of participating businesses

DB

5C To improve the academic attainment of young people within the senior phase of learning

Implement the new course arrangements for National 5 for session 2017- 2018 Support the planning of schools to review and improve attainment, using the updated Insight benchmarking toolkit

Increase the numbers of young people attaining senior phase qualifications

Increase the numbers of young people attaining good grades in senior phase qualifications

DB

Offering a range of vocational and academic opportunities and experiences, that meet the needs of all learners

5D To develop the Energise Fife Pathways to Employment Programme

Expand the programme of Industry challenge activities, including work experience, industry challenge, career mentoring, foundation apprenticeships, school-college partnership programmes and skills academies

Increase the numbers of young people engaging with Energise Fife programmes

Increase the numbers of participating businesses Increase the numbers of young people achieving

vocational qualifications

DB

5E To implement Foundation Apprenticeship Pathways

Implement plans for the new programme Review the quality of learning provided for young people

Increase the numbers of young people completing Foundation Apprenticeships

Increase uptake for session 2018 – 2019 programmes

DB

5F To develop an Integrated Key Worker Service for Young People at Risk of Negative Destinations

Establish the integrated team in order to provide support pre and post-16 as part of a continuous programme of mentoring and advocacy Establish effective models for joint working with schools and partners to reengage disaffected young people

Increase the numbers of young people engaging with the integrated service pre-16

Improve the outcomes for this group of young people in terms of engagement

DB


105

Page | 23

Our Action Plan for Empowering and Supporting Local Communities

Ref Strategic Goal Activities / Actions Outcome measure Owner Providing person-centred and collaborative services that are increasingly designed and delivered with the participation of children, young people and families 6A To develop a

structured approach to engagement with service users

Review systems for engagement and participation of service users. Improve processes that allow service users’ perceptions to inform service planning and design.

Outcomes of engagement are clearly evident in future planning of services

DD/JP

6B To further develop effective collaborative working at a local and Fife wide level

Review planning structures and joint procedures that assist in a joint response to families, children and those affected by crime. Ensure that effective arrangements for joint responses by key partners are in place.

Outcome of self-evaluation to ensure that children, families and those affected by crime receive a joined up, integrated response to need

DD/JP

6C To ensure professional learning activities are well designed to support school clusters

Working in partnership with the profession at cluster level to develop and deliver a wide and appropriate range of professional learning activities. Helping clusters to ensure that staff have the knowledge and skills required to help raise attainment and close the gap,

Staff participation and satisfaction across a range of learning experiences

Staff response to these activities

SMcL/PMcN

Ensuring that our services are effective in supporting early intervention strategies that prevent and reduce reoffending

6D To ensure a greater awareness of the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences on offending patterns

Further training, development work and research is undertaken on the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences on offending patterns.

Services are designed to address the particular needs of women offenders as the group disproportionately affected by trauma.

Measures of Community Justice staff awareness and confidence regarding the impact of trauma on offending patterns

DD

6E To ensure that offending behaviour is effectively challenged

High quality community based programmes are in place that directly address offending attitudes and help contribute to positive contributions to communities

The percentage of successfully completed Community Payback orders.

The percentage of successfully completed offender group work programmes.

DD

6F To ensure victims of crime receive the support they require

Specialist services are available to respond to the victims of crime (including MARAC, CEDAR/EYDAR, 3rd Sector support provision)

Evaluation of effectiveness of support measures including MARAC/MATAC annual reports

DD


106

Page | 24

How will we deliver our priorities for improvement?

In designing services for the future, we aim to develop an organisational structure which:

At Fife level: supports partnership working with other local and national partners to further implement GIRFEC and to deliver Fife’s Children’s Services Plan.

Across local areas: supports local area committees to develop and deliver local community planning and contributes to community empowerment, including the implementation of the Local Outcomes Improvement Plan for Fife.

Within school clusters: delivers the National Improvement Framework and support school improvement, with schools as partners in delivery.


107

Page | 25

How will our plan help to deliver the National Improvement Framework and Fife’s Children’s Services Plan?

Priority 9 of the CSP


Priority 12, 14, 15 of the CSP


Priority 5, 11 of the CSP






Priority 6, 7 of the CSP


Achieving the Priorities for Improvement identified within the Education and Children’s Services Directorate Plan 2017-20 will contribute to delivery of the Fife Children’s Services Plan (CSP) across a range of outcomes

6. The Alignment of Our Plan

108

Page | 26

Improving the impact of staff Better identifying and meeting the needs of children, young people, families and

communities

Ensuring that services are better supported by appropriate and effective

systems of support

Contribute to community empowerment, including within school clusters.

Address the key drivers for improvement across all aspects of the Directorate’s work


Our priorities for improvement and action plan for improvement will:


GIRFEC

Equity

Wellbeing

Employability

Attainment

Communities

Leadership Improvement Engagement Performance Professionalism Assessment

Help to maintain a focus on the National Improvement

Framework Priorities.

Support the further implementation of GIRFEC (the framework for all

children’s services).

109

Page | 27


The activities identified within our Action Plan for Improvement will collectively help us to improve our working across all of our Priority Areas and will also help to address the Drivers for Improvement (as identified within the National Improvement Framework).

Leadership Professionalism Assessment Engagement Performance Improvement Strengthening the implementation of GIRFEC

3A,3B,3D 1A,1D,3A 1D,3A,3C,3D 4E 3A,3C,3C,3D 1B, 1C,1E

Significantly Improving Attainment and Further Closing the Attainment Gap

2C 2E 2A,2F 2B,2C 2B,2C,2D,2E

Targeting Services and Resources to Meet the Greatest Need

3A,3B,3D 3A,3B,3C,3D,3E 3A,3C,3D,3E 4E 3F 3A,3F

Ensuring Better Health and Wellbeing

3B,3D 3A,4D,6B 3A,3B,3C,3D,4A 4A,4B,4C,4E,6A,6B 3A,3B,3C 3B,4A,4E

Improving the Employability Skills and Life Chances of Young People

6D 5B,5E 3B,5A,5F 5A,5B,5D,5F 2B,2C,5C 2B,2C,5A,5C,5E

Empowering and Supporting Local Communities

6D 6C,6D 3C,6E 6A, 6B, 6D,6F 6D 6A,6E,6F


110

Page | 28

We will measure the success of the Directorate Plan by monitoring a range of evidence, including a Scorecard of key outcome measures

Priority area Priorities for Improvement Scorecard Measures GIRFEC Continuing to support better parenting skills

through improved engagement with families Preventative, joined-up working in local

communities

Number of looked after children supported at home or in a kinship setting (objective: to increase)

Number of looked after children cared for outwith Fife (objective: to decrease)

Attainment More effective engagement and participation of children and young people in their learning

Developing better learning and teaching in the classroom and beyond

Attendance rates in secondary schools (objective: to increase) and exclusion rates (objective: to reduce to a minimal level)

Inspection outcomes for Early Learning Settings and Schools (objective: to achieve outcomes above the national average)

Equity Closing the attainment gap for pupils in the Broad General Education (BGE)

Improving educational outcomes for looked after children

The attainment gap in the Broad General for pupils living in socially disadvantaged areas (objective: to reduce)

Educational outcomes for looked after children (objective: to improve)

Wellbeing Improving physical health and development Supporting the emotional wellbeing of all

children and young people

Survey feedback from children regarding the opportunity for exercise and play (objective: to improve)

Referrals to child mental health services (CAMHS) (objective: to reduce). Evaluation to establish impact of support for emotional wellbeing within universal/additional services

Employability Increasing the attainment of key qualification sets that lead to wider post-school opportunities

Developing better pathways to positive post-school destinations

Attainment in key qualification sets, which enable a wider range of post school destinations (objective: to improve at all levels)

Positive destination from school, across all SIMD quintiles (objective: 95% positive destinations)

Communities Providing person-centred and collaborative services

Preventing and reducing reoffending

Survey feedback from pupils, looked after children, etc (objective: to improve). Evaluation of new service delivery models

The percentage of successfully completed Community Payback Orders (objective: to increase)

The Directorate Scorecard

111

Education and Childrens Services Committee


Additional Support for Voluntary Organisations through Pupil Equity Funding Report by: Executive Director (Education and Children’s Services)

Wards Affected: Ward 2 and Ward 7

Purpose

This report presents recommendations for the level of support to voluntary organisations within Fife for the period 2017-2020 being funded through Pupil Equity Fund.

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that Committee approve the level of funding to voluntary organisations as detailed in the attached schedules.


The grant schedules appended to this report detail recommendations from the following:

Pupil Equity Funding totalling £72,696

The overall total being recommended for the period 2017/18 is £72,696.

Members are requested to note that these figures are for school academic sessions and not financial years.


All awards are recommended for support and monitoring through use of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework as part of the monitoring of Pupil Equity fund spend.

Impact Assessment

No impact assessment is required as there are no substantial changes to service delivery. Changes to individual grants have been negotiated with the organisations concerned

Consultation

Members are encouraged to contact the relevant Education Officer if they would like to discuss individual awards or require further information prior to the Committee meeting. The contact information for the Education Officer is detailed on the footer of the appendix of this report.

112

1.0 Background

1.1 During 2016/17, Fife Council provided just over £14 million in grant support to voluntary organisations across all areas of Council activity. The majority of this support is provided through recurring grants directly to the organisations with a small amount being delivered through the non-recurring Community Grants Schemes as noted in a previous paper, Support for Voluntary Organisations, which was presented to Executive Committee on March 28th 2017.

1.2 With the implementation of the Pupil Equity Fund, schools are being encouraged to work with voluntary organisations to provide additional support for young people and their families with a view to closing the poverty related attainment gap. This is resulting in and will continue to result in schools engaging the services of voluntary organisations over and above the core service contracts agreed and at an additional cost. As this is an ongoing process, members are requested to note that further approval of spend will be required at future committee meetings.

1.3 The appended schedule details the awards recommended for approval that will be delivering agreed activities for Fife Council from within the Pupil Equity Fund.

2.0 Monitoring and Evaluation

2.1 The link Education Officer and school leadership team will work with the Monitoring and Evaluation Team to ensure regular monitoring and evaluation of impact of work being undertaken by voluntary organisations within schools which is financed through Pupil Equity Fund.

2.2 The following monitoring and assessment procedures are undertaken prior to each award being presented to the Executive Committee for a decision:

Organisations are required to submit an application or forward plan outlining the services they aim to provide during the period 2017/18.

The project is assessed by the appropriate school link Education Officer against the priorities of the Service, the Council's priorities and the Fife Community Plan.

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 The awards presented to Committee have been assessed in line with Service priorities and are considered to make a valued contribution to the delivery of services across Fife.

List of Appendices

1. List of recommendations for payments from Education and Children’s Services.

113

Background Papers

The following papers were relied on in the preparation of this report in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973:

Pupil Equity Funding – National Operational Guidance – 2017 http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Education/Schools/Raisingeducationalattainment/pupilequityfund/guidance

Report Contact

Sarah Else Education Officer Education Rothesay House, Glenrothes Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 Ext. 471855 Email – [email protected]

114

Recommended Awards - 2017/18 – Education and Children’s Services Committee - Appendix 1

Education and Children’s Services

Link Education Officer – Sarah Else

Recommendation

Organisation Project Description Award

16/17

Requested Grant17/18

17/18 18/19 19/20 Total

2017-2020

Additional Comments

Drug and Alcohol Project Ltd (DAPL)

Counselling and Support service 28 hours per week over 40 weeks in St Joseph’s school

£0 £28,500 £28,500 £0 £0 £28,500 Funded by Scottish Government attainment Challenge Fund via Education Service

Drug and Alcohol Project Ltd (DAPL)

Counselling and support service 1 day per week over 40 weeks in Queen Anne High School


Fife Gingerbread Support Worker, 18

hour post to work with families.

Family Learning Coordinator, 18 hour post to lead on the Family Learning Hub at Lochgelly High School


115


29th August 2017 Agenda Item No 11

Education and Children’s Services Directorate

Revenue Budget 2016-17 Provisional Outturn Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director Education and Children’s Services Eileen Rowand, Executive Director Finance & Corporate Services

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the provisional outturn for the

2016-17 Education and Children’s Services Revenue Budget.

Recommendation(s)

Members are asked to: a. note the provisional outturn position (subject to audit) for 2016-17 as detailed in

this report, and the reasons for the main variances b. note that the Education and Children’s Services Directorate continues to

implement the Strategy approved by the Executive Committee in January 2015 to reduce the reliance on purchased care placements and increase the number of children who can safely be looked after at home or in kinship care, and

c. otherwise note the contents of thisreport.


The Directorate remains committed to managing the budget and developing and implementing the strategy to address the demographic pressures on the budget.


The Directorate requires to discharge its duty as Corporate Parent to all Looked After Children and to support their families accordingly. It is committed to proactive management of the budget to reduce the level of care placements whilst managing the risk to individuals.

Impact Assessment

There is no requirement for an impact assessment in respect of this report as no change or revision to existing policies and practices is proposed.

Consultation

Nil

116

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the provisional revenue outturn for the Education and Children’s Services Directorate for 2016-17, and to highlight significant under and over spends. Members should note that the outturn is provisional until the annual audit of accounts is complete on 30 September 2017.

2.0 Provisional Outturn and Major Variances

2.1 Education and Children’s Services 2015-16 Projected Out-turn

2.1.1 The provisional revenue budget position for the directorate is an underspend of £2.527m, represented by an underspend on the Devolved School Management (DSM) budgets of £2.535m, an overspend on Non DSM budgets of £2.490m and an underspend of £2.481m within the Children and Families and Criminal Justice Service. A summary of the provisional outturn for the Directorate is detailed in Appendix 1, together with details relating to DSM, non-Devolved and Children and Families. It should be noted that the balances included are extracted straight from Oracle and are shown as rounded thousands. This may mean that there are some rounding differences contained within the appendices, but these are immaterial values that do not impact on the overall financial position.

2.2 Education Service

2.2.1 DSM School Budgets –Variance £2.535m underspend. Movement (£0.301m)

The main element of the underspend relates to underspends on employee costs of £4.277m. This is mainly due to the high level of teaching vacancies and shortage of supply cover in schools. The underspend within employee costs relating to teachers is £3.935m, with £1.625m in Primary, £1.646m in Secondary and £0.664m across stand alone nurseries and special schools. The Directorate continues to take steps to address this position through a proactive recruitment campaign. This underspend is partly offset by an overspend on pupil support of £0.418m and supplies and services within schools of £1.562m, as head teachers have utilised some of the underspend to augment the spend on printing, stationery, communications and computing equipment.

2.2.2 The movement since the last reported position relates to an increase in the underspend on employee costs of £1.868m, due to the level of teaching vacancies. This is partly offset by an increase in costs within supplies and services of £1.261m which is due mainly to increases in printing and computing supplies and equipment.

2.2.3 Schools carried forward a £2.449m underspend, under the DSM Scheme,

into 2016-17. However, the revenue budget process for 2016-19 resulted in a

117

further £2.596m of savings being applied to devolved school budgets, these being a mix of permanent and temporary savings. The projected position reported above therefore reflects an in year underspend, which is due in the main to the continuing shortage of teachers and lack of supply availability. However, the level of overspend on the non-staffing elements reflects the pressure within other budgets, and head teachers have used some of the staffing underspend to supplement spend elsewhere. The overall DSM underspend in 2016-17, of £2.535m, represents an average underspend of £7k per primary school and £60k per secondary school.

2.2.4 Non DSM/Childcare – Variance £2.489m overspend. Movement (£1.480m)

2.2.5 The overspend within the non devolved Education budget is mainly due to an overspend on long term absence of £0.579m and maternity costs of £2.147m. Overspends also occurred on cleaning costs of £0.646m (due to increased cleaning charges for schools), transport costs of £0.636m and supplies and services of £0.503m. These overspends have been offset by an underspend on Early Years Officers of £1.432m due to recruitment lead in times and workforce planning. An underspend on energy costs across schools of £1.041m also contributes to the outturn position.

2.2.6 The movement since the last report is due to an increase in the overspend on

long term absence and maternity costs of £0.368m, offset by reductions in anticipated spend on energy (£0.764m), Single Status staff including Early Years Officers (£0.768m) and pension costs and training of (£0.741m).

2.3 Children and Families – Variance £2.481m underspend, movement (£1.280m)

2.3.1 The service underspend is mainly in respect of two areas; employee costs (£0.854m) and third party costs (£1.639m).

2.3.2 In terms of staffing costs the underspend is due to staff vacancies and

recruitment lead in times. As the Strategy for the service has included a significant increase in social work staff an element of the underspend also relates to the need to ensure that future pay scale increments can be funded from the service budget.

2.3.3 Third party payments include the cost of purchased care placements. The

underspend in relation to this element of the budget is due to the success of the first stages of the Children and Families Strategy, which reduced care placements during 2016-17, and resulted in an underspend of £0.611m in care costs. Placement levels have reduced from a high in June 2015, however, ensuring the needs of children are met can lead to short term fluctuations in the overall number of placements.

2.3.4 In addition to the above, an underspend of £0.483m has arisen due to

government funding received to support new burdens. This is in terms of funding to support continuing care, throughcare and aftercare which will take time to bed in. Finally, a further underspend of £0.493m is in relation to a

118

reduction in the number of children within Fife Council foster care placements.

2.3.5 The movement of £1.280m from the previous report is due to a higher

underspend than anticipated on employee costs due to vacancies and recruitment lead in times of £0.504m, and an increase in the underspend on third party payments of £0.536m, mainly due to reduced purchased placement costs and funding received for new initiatives.

2.3.6 The implementation of the service strategy approved in January 2015 has led

to reducing levels of care placements, with more children being cared for at home or in kinship care. When the Strategy commenced in April 2015, the number of purchased care placements was 343.This number peaked at 357 placements in June 2015, and has reduced over time to 321 as at 31 March 2017. However, fluctuations in placement numbers, including increases, can still take place as the overriding requirement is to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to safeguard children when necessary, including care arrangements where required.

3.0 Savings

3.1 Revenue Budget Savings 2015-16

3.1.1 The combined savings target, as approved in the 2016-19 budget process and earlier budget processes, for the Directorate to deliver in the 16-17 financial year was £7.492m. A summary of the savings tracker is attached at Appendix 2. Variances within individual savings have occurred, and these relate to:-

- Redesign of support to meet learners’ needs (£0.225m) It has not been possible to implement this saving as it would have an adverse impact on Fife’s Pupil:Teacher Ratio (PTR). When this saving was implemented (2014-15) it was envisaged that restrictions around PTR would be relaxed, however this has not been the case. This saving will be achieved in 2017-18 via a restructuring of services in support for learning. ‐ Share of Business Support Savings (£0.423m) Schools’ admin and clerical staff were initially within scope to transfer to Business Support Service. However subsequently it was agreed that Education should retain these staff. This saving is the share of the Business Support efficiency related to these services. The substitute saving below has achieved this saving in 2016-17, however a review of admin and clerical resource within schools will require to be undertaken in 2017-18 in order to embed the saving on a recurring basis.

‐ Substitute saving – budget management (DSM) (£0.423m) The saving above relates to the DSM budget. Whilst this was not embedded into budgets, it was achieved on a temporary basis via budget management within the DSM in 2016-17 as the DSM accommodated these savings and underspent.

119

‐ Cleaning / Fleet / Utilities – (£0.177m) These savings were intended to be achieved through a reduction in service from cleaning, fleet etc. However, achievement of these savings has been overtaken by increases in charges from services (cleaning) or a requirement to replace fleet vehicles which has in turn increased the cost ‐ Music Service – Additional Income (£0.070m) Several budget rounds have increased the target for income generation on the Music Service. The additional income target has not been achieved for 2016-17 and an increase in fees charges will be implemented to recover the shortfall in 2017-18.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1 The provisional outturn for the Education and Children’s Services Directorate Revenue Budget for 2016-17 is an underspend of £2.527m. The dominant factors in this, as described above, are the overspend on long term absence and maternity cover for teaching staff, and overspends on cleaning, transport and supplies and services.

4.2 These overspends are offset by underspends in relation to staffing costs within Education (DSM), due to teaching vacancies and shortage of supply cover in schools, and staffing costs in Early Years due to recruitment delays and effective workforce planning. Also within Education an underspend on energy costs also contributes to the outturn. Children and Families Service have experienced some early success from the Children and Families Strategy, and as a result underspent on purchased care costs.

List of Appendices

1: Education and Children’s Services Revenue Monitor 2016-17

2: Savings Tracker

Report Contacts:

Shelagh McLean Alison Binnie

Head of Education (Equity & System Imp.) Finance Business Partner (Education &

Rothesay House Children’s Services), Fife House

Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 444229 Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 441058

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

120

Budget Monitoring Report SummaryAppendix 1

EDUCATION & CHILDREN SERVICES

MARCH 17

SERVICE BUDGET ACTUALS VARIANCE VARIANCE DEC-16 MOVEMENT

£000s £000s £000s % £000s £000s

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 355,804 353,277 (2,527) -0.71% 533 (3,060)

ANALYSIS OF SERVICE MANAGED BUDGET

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DEVOLVED 182,610 180,075 (2,535) -1.39% (2,234) (301)

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES NON DEVOLVED 110,368 112,857 2,490 2.26% 3,968 (1,479)

CHILDREN & FAMILIES/CJS 62,826 60,345 (2,481) -3.95% (1,201) (1,280)

EDUCATION & CHILDREN SERVICES 355,804 353,277 (2,527) -0.71% 533 (3,060)

Description BUDGET ACTUALS VARIANCE VARIANCE DEC-16 MOVEMENT

£000s £000s £000s % £000s £000s

TOTAL REVENUE 355,804 353,277 (2,527) -0.71% 533 (3,060)

INCOME (18,044) (17,264) 780 -4.32% (341) 1,121

EXTERNAL INCOME (17,483) (16,621) 861 -4.93% (332) 1,193

INTERNAL INCOME (561) (643) (81) 14.49% (9) (72)

EXPENDITURE 373,847 370,540 (3,307) -0.88% 874 (4,181)

EMPLOYEE COSTS 260,717 257,525 (3,191) -1.22% 2,067 (5,258)

PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 28,208 27,994 (214) -0.76% 601 (814)

TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 15,333 16,077 744 4.85% 226 518

SUPPLIES & SERVICES 18,068 20,442 2,374 13.14% 806 1,568

THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS 45,910 44,587 (1,323) -2.88% (984) (339)

TRANSFER PAYMENTS 5,345 3,498 (1,847) -34.56% (142) (1,705)

CAPITAL FINANCE & CHARGES 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

SUPPORT SERVICES CHARGES 267 418 151 56.57% 101 50

Service Managed Budget

PREVIOUS REPORTED VARIANCE


121

Budget Monitoring Report Summary

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - DSM

MARCH 17

SERVICE Description BUDGET ACTUALS VARIANCE VARIANCE DEC-16 MOVEMENT

£000s £000s £000s % £000s £000s

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 182,610 180,075 (2,535) -1.39% (2,234) (301)


PRIMARY EDUCATION 87,079 86,058 (1,021) -1.17% (964) (57)

SECONDARY EDUCATION 87,155 86,079 (1,076) -1.23% (783) (294)

NURSERY EDUCATION 4,297 3,897 (400) -9.31% (350) (50)

SPECIAL EDUCATION 3,900 3,870 (30) -0.77% (143) 113

AREA GROUPS 179 171 (8) -4.34% 5 (13)

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

FIFE MUSIC SERVICE 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

SUPPORT SERVICES 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

GENERAL EDUCATION 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

CHILDCARE 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 182,610 180,075 (2,535) -1.39% (2,234) (301)

Description BUDGET ACTUALS VARIANCE VARIANCE DEC-16 MOVEMENT

£000s £000s £000s % £000s £000s

TOTAL REVENUE 182,610 180,075 (2,535) (2,234) (301)

INCOME (1,452) (1,772) (319) (443) 123

EXTERNAL INCOME (1,323) (1,608) (286) (374) 89

INTERNAL INCOME (130) (163) (34) (68) 35

EXPENDITURE 184,063 181,847 (2,216) (1,791) (425)

EMPLOYEE COSTS 176,637 172,360 (4,277) (2,409) (1,868)

PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 276 536 259 144 115

TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 229 339 109 121 (12)

SUPPLIES & SERVICES 5,077 6,639 1,562 300 1,261

THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS 1,842 1,926 84 30 54

TRANSFER PAYMENTS 0 0 0 0 0

CAPITAL FINANCE & CHARGES 0 0 0 0 0

SUPPORT SERVICES CHARGES 1 48 47 23 24




122


EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - NON DEVOLVED EDUCATION

MARCH 17


£000s £000s £000s % £000s £000s

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 110,368 112,857 2,490 2.26% 3,968 (1,479)


PRIMARY EDUCATION 24,167 25,379 1,212 1,425 (213)

SECONDARY EDUCATION 25,985 26,440 455 706 (251)

NURSERY EDUCATION 24,334 22,570 (1,763) (448) (1,315)

SPECIAL EDUCATION 26,867 27,723 856 737 119

AREA GROUPS 636 624 (13) 3 (15)

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION 2,936 2,967 31 (66) 97

STAFF DEVELOPMENT 210 203 (7) (47) 40

FIFE MUSIC SERVICE 1,481 1,542 61 (16) 77

SUPPORT SERVICES 2,430 2,369 (61) (44) (17)

GENERAL EDUCATION (75) 1,527 1,601 1,605 (4)

CHILDCARE 1,396 1,513 117 114 3

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 110,368 112,857 2,490 3,968 (1,479)

Description BUDGET ACTUALS VARIANCE DEC-16 MOVEMENT

£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s

TOTAL REVENUE 110,368 112,857 2,490 3,968 (1,479)

INCOME (10,213) (8,988) 1,225 182 1,043

EXTERNAL INCOME (9,782) (8,528) 1,254 (55) 1,309

INTERNAL INCOME (431) (460) (29) 237 (266)

EXPENDITURE 120,581 121,845 1,264 3,786 (2,522)

EMPLOYEE COSTS 61,335 63,275 1,940 3,026 (1,086)

PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 27,368 26,899 (469) 459 (929)

TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 13,632 14,268 636 145 491

SUPPLIES & SERVICES 10,976 11,479 503 (7) 510

THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS 5,317 5,548 231 89 142

TRANSFER PAYMENTS 1,688 17 (1,672) 0 (1,672)






123


CHILDREN & FAMILIES/CJS

MARCH 17


£000s £000s £000s £000s % £000s £000s

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 62,826 60,345 (2,481) -3.95% (1,201) (1,280)


C & F WEST 3,669 3,632 (37) (95) 59

C & F EAST 4,613 4,951 339 383 (45)

C & F FIFE WIDE 39,914 38,704 (1,210) (1,306) 96

C & F RESIDENTIAL 2,997 2,990 (6) 60 (66)

C & F FAMILY PLACEMENT 9,456 8,992 (463) (193) (270)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICE 97 (291) (388) (188) (200)

CHILDREN & FAMILIES SENIOR MANAGER 2,081 1,366 (715) 139 (854)

CHILDREN & FAMILIES/CJS 62,826 60,345 (2,481) (1,201) (1,280)

Description BUDGET ACTUALS VARIANCE DEC-16 MOVEMENT

£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s

TOTAL REVENUE 62,826 60,345 (2,481) (1,201) (1,280)

INCOME (6,378) (6,504) (126) (80) (46)

EXTERNAL INCOME (6,378) (6,485) (107) 98 (205)

INTERNAL INCOME 0 (19) (19) (178) 159

EXPENDITURE 69,204 66,848 (2,355) (1,121) (1,234)

EMPLOYEE COSTS 22,746 21,891 (854) (350) (504)

PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 563 559 (4) (3) (1)

TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 1,471 1,470 (1) (40) 39

SUPPLIES & SERVICES 2,015 2,324 309 513 (203)

THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS 38,751 37,112 (1,639) (1,103) (536)

TRANSFER PAYMENTS 3,656 3,481 (176) (142) (34)






124

Appendix 2

2014-17 0.333 0.333 0.000 Green

2014-17 0.225 0.000 (0.225) Red

2014-17 0.273 0.000 (0.273) Red

2016-19 0.000 0.423 0.423 Green

2015-18 0.020 0.020 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.050 0.050 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.100 0.100 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.038 0.038 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.050 0.000 (0.050) Red

2015-18 0.050 0.000 (0.050) Red

2015-18 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.061 0.061 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.270 0.270 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.129 0.052 (0.077) Amber

2016-19 0.026 0.026 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.004 0.000 (0.004) Red

2016-19 0.205 0.205 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.100 0.100 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.174 0.174 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.333 0.333 0.000 Green

2016-19 1.536 1.536 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.100 0.030 (0.070) Amber

2016-19 0.150 0.000 (0.150) Red

2016-19 0.002 0.002 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.396 0.396 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.019 0.019 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.001 0.001 0.000 Green

2016-19 1.694 1.694 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.002 0.002 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.083 0.000 (0.083) Red

2016-19 0.112 0.000 (0.112) Red

2016-19 0.007 0.007 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.250 0.227 (0.023) Amber

2016-19 0.041 0.000 (0.041) Red

6.864 6.129 (0.735)

Rag Status Key:- Summary

Green - no issues and saving is on track to be delivered Green 5.397 5.820 0.423

Amber 0.479 0.309 (0.170)

Red 0.988 0.000 (0.988)

Total 6.864 6.129 (0.735)

Overall

Forecast

£000

(Under)/

over

£000

Amber - there are minor issues or minor reduction in the value

Red - Major issues to be addressed before any saving can be

Income from Charging

Remove non-statutory Transportation for Nursery Pupils

Previous Changing Children's Services Fund Allocation to NHS

Central Utilities

Fees and Charges

Travel Expenses

Review of Staffing Budget - Vacancy Management

Workforce Planning

Review of Central Structures

Leadership Models - Stand Alone Nurseries

Leadership Models - Secondary Management

Attendance Management DSM

Central Management and Support Costs ( excl 3S)

Grounds Maintenance

Waste Collection

Cleaning Costs

Organisation & Management

Savings

Target

£000

FIFE COUNCIL

TRACKING APPROVED 2016-17 SAVINGS

(Under)/

over

£m

Creating Council Wide Shared support Services - Business

Progress towards application of the Corporate Management

Framework within Secondary Schools

Redesign of support to meet learners' needs

Savings

Target

£m

Savings

Achieved

£m

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Approved

Budget

Year

Title of Savings Proposal Rag

Status

Grand Total

Fleet Operations

Early Years Review

Terms and Conditions - Mileage

Terms and Conditions - Overtime

Early Education Transformation Delivery

Music Service - Additional Income

Fees & Charges increase by CPI + 1.5%

Reduction in Supplies and Services

Review of Inflation - Payments/Subsidy to Catering

Review of Inflation - Grants to Voluntary Organisations

Acceleration of employee savings within Bus Support

Reduction of 1% to Voluntary Sector

Reduce absence costs

Printing and Telephony

Workforce Planning Nursery Classes

Substitute Saving - Saving achieved on a temporary basis via

effective service budget manangement

125

Appendix 2

2016-19 0.030 0.030 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.250 0.250 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.065 0.000 (0.065) Red

2016-19 0.002 0.002 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.118 0.118 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.032 0.032 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.078 0.078 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.021 0.000 (0.021) Red

2016-19 0.022 0.000 (0.022) Red

2016-19 0.000 0.108 0.108 Green

0.628 0.628 0.000

Rag Status Key:- Summary


Amber 0.000 0.000 0.000

Red 0.108 0.000 (0.108)

Total 0.628 0.628 0.000

Organisation & Management

FIFE COUNCIL


CHILDREN & FAMILIES & CJS

Commissioning of Services

Travel Expenses

Approved

Budget

Year

Title of Savings Proposal

Savings

Target

£m

Savings

Achieved

£m

(Under)/

over

£m

Rag

Status

Grand Total

Savings

Target

£000

Overall

Forecast

£000

(Under)/

over

£000

Amber - there are minor issues or minor reduction in the value of

Red - Major issues to be addressed before any saving can be

Purchase Placements - Substitute Saving

Review of Staffing Budget - Vacancy Management

Reduction of 1% to Voluntary Sector

Reduction in Supplies and Services

Review of Inflation - Grants to Voluntary Organisations


Terms and Conditions - Mileage

Terms and Conditions - Overtime

126



Education and Children’s Services Directorate - Capital Investment Plan 2016-2017: Outturn Report

Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director, Education and Children’s Services Directorate and Eileen Rowand, Executive Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

This report provides members with a summary of the Education and Children’s Services Directorate’s financial position against the capital budget, for the financial year 2016-17, as well as an overview of progress on individual projects within the capital investment plan.

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that members;

i) note the outturn position for the 2016-17 Capital investment Plan. These figures are provisional, being subject to audit;

ii) note the reported spend of £27.941m represents 87.4% of the approved capital programme for 2016-17; and

iii) note that budget variance of £4.028m will be carried forward to financial year 2017-18.


There are no direct resource implications. The final outturn spend is £27.941m, which is a variance of £4.028m under budget. In the main, this underspend is attributed to slippage in the capital programme. F uture years’ spending will be augmented to address this shortfall.


There are no legal implications arising from this report. The slippage will be included within the capital programme in 2016/17 and the programme re-profiled over future years.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA has not been completed and is not necessary for the following reasons: No change or revision to existing policies is proposed.

Consultation

Not Applicable.

127

1.0 Background

1.1 This report summarises the outturn position for 2016/17 for the Education and Children’s Services capital programme.

1.2 This report focuses on one year; the outturn figure is under budget, as a direct result of project slippage, this will be mitigated by accelerating future projects across the capital programme.

1.3 Appendix 1 provides the final outturn for Education and Children’s Services for the year 2016/17.

1.4 Appendix 2 provides the cost detail on individual projects within the capital plan where expenditure exceeds £1m.

1.5 Appendices 3 and 4 provide information on the major projects undertaken within 2016-2017.


2.1 2016/17 Outturn Position

2.2 The final outturn of the Education and Children’s Services capital programme for financial year 2016/17 is £27.941m. In total, 87.4% of the programmed budget was spent in 2016/17. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the outturn for the Directorate.

2.3 The variance from the programmed budget, of £31.968m, is attributed to a combination of capital expenditure being delayed or advanced from future years and under/over spending on individual capital projects. The variance is split across the different programmes as follows:

Building Fife’s Future Programme slippage of £1.796m Investment Themes slippage of £1.836m Children’s Services slippage of £0.396m Overall Total slippage of £4.028m

2.4 Building Fife’s Future (BFF) programme

2.5 The Building Fife’s Future programme is currently showing a variance of £1.796m. The majority of this slippage (£1.193m) is attributed to the project to provide a new facility for Waid Academy. This slippage is the result of a delay to the procurement of the IT technology and infrastructure.

2.6 The new 4 classroom extension to Carnegie Primary in Dunfermline was completed on time and opened to pupils and staff in August 2016. Project outturn was £21k over budget which will be offset against savings from within the Building Fife Future’s Programme.

128

2.7 Madras College – The Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) has been submitted and a detailed planning application will follow around the end of September 2017. However, determination of this application is dependent upon determination of Planning Permission in Principle for the Strategic Development Area and the new access road. As it is an island site, construction of the new school is also dependent upon completion of the new road to provide access and it is understood that the new road, which is subject to a separate planning application, is also scheduled to be submitted at the end of September 2017. The build period is expected to be around 2 years and is currently planned to complete during academic session 2020/2021. The statutory education consultation process is now concluded, the output from the consultation will be reported to a future committee

2.8 Investment Themes – Major projects completed in 2016-17

The total outturn is £8.358m across all the investment themes, against a budget of £10,93m, which results in the themes reporting a slippage of £1.836m in 2016/17. The variance is mostly the result of planned slippage within the Early Years theme of £0.913m. This has been carried forward to 2017/18 and will be supplemented with funding from the Scottish Government to deliver the first phase of the 1140 hours programme. Future phases are continuing to be developed.

2.9 The Reduced Class Sizes theme is showing an overspend of £36k. This overspend is due to work being undertaken at Pathhead Primary school. The project created more floor area within the school whilst improving the sinks and budget will be moved from environmental improvements to balance this theme in 2017/18.

2.10 The extension to Treetop Nursery in Inverkeithing was completed in October 2016. The nursery now has a purpose built 2 year old room with direct access to a dedicated garden ar ea. The project also created a new reception and office area within the heart of the building, improving both access and security.

2.11 New improved 2 year old facilities were also provided at Paxton Nursery in Methil and Valley Primary School in Kirkcaldy.

2.12 The Sustainable School Estate funding theme delivered £2.436m of projects within the receiving schools in 2016/17. Work to replace the heating at Pitreavie Primary School is ongoing and is expected to be fully operational by November 2017.

2.13 Also completed in 2016/17 was the replacement of the old modular units at Crail Primary School. The work also involved improvements to the dining room/games hall and the link corridor.

2.14 Children & Families Service Capital Plan

2.15 The Children & Families Service capital programme has an overall final variance of £0.396m. This variance is slippage and will carry forward into 2017/18 and future years.

2.16 The project to re-provide Rimbleton children’s house at Raith Gates in Kirkcaldy is at the detailed design stage and will start on site in January 2018.

2.17 The Looked after Children budget has slippage of £0.396m which will be spent in 2017/18 to address work at Residential Houses. To ensure they comply with legislative standards and provide a safe environment, projects have now been identified and will be delivered in 2017/18.

129

2.18 Future Projects

2.19 New nursery accommodation will be provided for Capshard Primary School along with an additional two classroom extension. This project will incorporate facilities for CLD and will enable the old nursery modular units and the Dunnikier Community Centre, currently on this site, to be removed. Work will start on site December 2017.

2.20 The old Rosslyn Special School is currently being converted into a facility for early years learning. The new accommodation will be available from August 2017, to accommodate pupils from Pathhead nursery who will use this new facility as a temporary venue until an extension to their school is completed. The new extension is due to be available from August 2018, at which point, the Rosslyn building will be used to support provision for 1140 hrs of early years learning.

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 The outturn position for the capital programme for Education and Children’s Services is £27.941m, a variance from budget of £4.028m.

3.2 However, the management of capital resource requires us to look across financial years, as well as within individual years. The current year performance is only a snapshot of the existing plan and the Directorate will adjust expenditure levels within future years of the plan to accommodate the advancement of projects.

List of Appendices

1. Project Cost Monitor

2. Capital Plan 2016-17 Forecast Expenditure Statement

3. Treetop Centre Portfolio

4. Carnegie Primary School Extension Portfolio

Background Papers

Not applicable

Report Contacts

Dawn Cook Louise Playford Team Manager (Capital Programme) Service Manager (School Estate) Telephone: 08451 55 55 55 + 442829 Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 444203 Email. [email protected] Email. [email protected]

Shelagh McLean Alison Binnie Head of Education & Children’s Services Finance Business Partner Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 444229 Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 441058 Email. [email protected] Email. [email protected]

130

CAPITAL PLAN 2016-17 FORECAST EXPENDITURE APPENDIX 1

EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIRECTORATE

ACTUAL SPEND TO

DATE

REMAINING SPEND

PROJECTION

TOTAL PROJECTED

OUTTURN

TOTAL PROJECTED

BUDGET VARIANCE VARIANCE

PROJECT SERVICE £m £m £m £m £m

DUNFERMLINE HS NEW BUILD E&CS 39.020 0.002 39.022 39.022 0.000 0.00%

WINDMILL COMMUNITY CAMPUS E&CS 26.489 0.325 26.814 26.540 0.274 1.03%

LEVENMOUTH ACADEMY E&CS 6.257 0.265 6.522 6.522 0.000 0.00%

MADRAS COLLEGE NEW BUILD E&CS 3.175 50.018 53.194 53.194 0.000 0.00%

WAID ACADEMY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION E&CS 22.089 2.087 24.176 24.282 (0.106) (0.44%)

RIMBLETON HOME REPROVISION E&CS 0.188 1.207 1.394 1.394 0.000 0.00%

97.217 53.904 151.121 150.953 0.168 0.60%

131



CURRENT BUDGET

16-17 OUTTURN PROJECTED VARIANCE

OUTTURN AS A % OF

PLAN

2017-26 APPROVED

CAPITAL PLAN

CAPITAL PROJECT £m £m £m £m

BUILDING FIFE'S FUTURE

AUCHMUTY HS NEW BUILD 0.100 0.019 (0.081) 18.8% 0.000

BURNTISLAND PS NEW BUILD 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.4% 0.000

DUNFERMLINE HS NEW BUILD 0.020 0.018 (0.002) 91.3% 0.000

WINDMILL COMMUNITY CAMPUS 2.609 2.557 (0.051) 98.0% 0.000

MADRAS COLLEGE NEW BUILD 0.458 (0.018) (0.475) (3.8%) 49.543

WAID ACADEMY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION 15.089 13.895 (1.193) 92.1% 1.000

LEVENMOUTH ACADEMY 1.911 1.647 (0.265) 86.2% 0.000

CARNEGIE PS - EXTENSION 1.179 1.200 0.021 101.7% 0.000

MADRAS COLLEGE REFURBISHMENT WORKS 0.000 0.251 0.251 0.0% 0.000

TOTAL BUILDING FIFE'S FUTURE 21.366 19.569 (1.796) 91.6% 50.543

INVESTMENT THEMES

EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS 0.408 0.187 (0.221) 45.8% 2.661

REDUCED CLASS SIZES 0.015 0.050 0.036 344.5% 0.000

WIND & WATERTIGHT 0.565 0.365 (0.200) 64.5% 3.721

CURRICULUM ENHANCEMENTS 0.954 1.041 0.087 109.1% 2.061

UNDER ONE ROOF 1.093 1.055 (0.038) 96.5% 8.168

SAFER SCHOOLS 0.149 0.172 0.023 115.5% 1.084

FIRE PROGRAMME 0.404 0.133 (0.271) 32.9% 3.317

ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAMME 0.407 0.444 0.037 109.1% 3.257

ICT PROGRAMME 0.427 0.398 (0.029) 93.3% 3.153

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS 0.001 0.000 (0.001) 0.0% 0.000

OUTDOOR EDUCATION 0.147 0.112 (0.035) 76.4% 0.000

EARLY YEARS 2.877 1.964 (0.913) 68.3% 3.862

SUSTAINABLE SCHOOL ESTATES 2.746 2.436 (0.311) 88.7% 0.475

TOTAL INVESTMENT THEMES 10.193 8.358 (1.836) 82.0% 31.760

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LOOKED AFER CHILDREN HOMES REPROVISION 0.200 0.002 (0.198) 1.2% 1.009

LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN 0.210 0.012 (0.198) 5.5% 0.000

TOTAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.410 0.014 (0.396) 6.7% 1.009

TOTAL EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES 31.968 27.941 (4.028) 87.4% 83.312

132

APPENDIX 3

Property Services

T R E E T O P F A M I L Y N U R T U R E C E N T R E E X T E N S I O N T O A N D R E F U R B I S H M E N T O F E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G

Project Details

Construction Value: £875,000

Start Date: November 2015

Completion Date: August 2016 Client:

Education Service Fife Council 5th Floor Rothesay House Glenrothes

Main Contractor:

Building Services Bankhead Central, Bankhead Park Glenrothes

Contract Type: Partnering Procurement

Inverkeithing Nursery is a single storey facility comprising two linked buildings, the original part known locally as the “70’s” building (built: 1976) and the “Link Plus” building (an extension built: 2000) and forms an integral partner of the tripartite “Inverkeithing Education Campus” being sandwiched between Inverkeithing Primary School and Inverkeithing High. The project involved carrying out a combination of minor alteration and refurbishment works to the existing buildings as well as the construction of a new 225m² single storey extension to increase the overall capacity of the nursery roll in response to the Scottish Government’s commitment to improving and increasing high quality, flexible early learning via the TheMChildren and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The extension provides accommodation for under three year old children and family learning areas via a new playroom and activity space, a new teaching kitchen, infants’ toilets, a store, laundry room, a nappy changing room, an accessible toilet, a new Head Teacher’s office and an Admin Office / Reception to greet visitors to a new main entrance. There is also a new plant room giving the benefit of a mains gas supply to the building for the first time. External landscaping works to the rear and gable end of the building provide safe, secure outdoor physical activities / play areas, a vital part of the school curriculum. The nursery has since been renamed / rebranded as “Treetop Family Nurture Centre”.

133

CARNEGIE PRIMARY SCHOOL + EXTENSION, PITTSBURGH ROAD, DUNFERMLINE

Property Services

Project Details:

Construction Value: £9.30m/£2.03M Start/Completion Dates: New Build

June 2010 – August 2011 Extension Dec 2015 – July 2016

Client: Fife Council Education Service Project Manager: Alastair Drummond/Josh

Glancy Main Contractor: Morgan Sindall

Construction/BAM Construction

Contract Type: Tendered Design &

Build/Hub DBDA

Project Description: Main School Build (2010) The new Carnegie Primary School can accommodate 434 Primary Pupils, 160 Nursery places and has a fully integrated Additional Support Needs Unit. The facility was delivered as part of the Building Fife’s Future Programme and was briefed and Project Managed by Fife Council Property Services. Internal accommodation includes: Community Lounge, Library/IT Suite/Hub Area, Gym Hall, Combined Dining/Assembly Hall, Kitchen with Ancillary Accommodation, Class Rooms, Multi Purpose Class Room, Tutorial Rooms, Reception with Office and a Meeting Room. External features include: Playground areas, Multi Use Games Area, Grass 7 a side Football Pitch, Woodland Walk, Trim Trail Equipment, External Dining Area, Wildlife Wetland Area, Amphitheatre, Orchard and Pupil Planting Area. The school has been designed with the highest levels of environmental performance firmly in mind. Imbued with high levels of natural light and served by efficient natural ventilation systems, the building has been constructed to high levels of air tightness with a fabric capable of achieving excellent standards of thermal performance. The building achieved an EPC rating of A+ and subject to final ratification, is on course to achieve a BREEAM rating of “outstanding”. The building boasts a number of sustainable features including a gas fired CHP plant producing electricity and hot water for under floor heating, a 15kw wind turbine producing electricity for lights and computers, A and A+ Green Guide rated materials throughout, air source heat pumps extracting heat for under floor heating and rain water harvesting for flushing toilets to name a few.

134

CARNEGIE PRIMARY SCHOOL + EXTENSION, PITTSBURGH ROAD, DUNFERMLINE

Property Services

Extension (2016) Due to the large increase in school rolls in Dunfermline and specifically in the Duloch area, the existing Carnegie Primary School has to use areas not built for teaching as classrooms. In order to remedy this problem an extension to the existing building was proposed. The extension consists of 4 classrooms, a teaching base, male and female WCs, and ancillary accommodation. Property Services are providing Project Management services to the project. The project is being carried out in partnership with East Central Hub and the Design & Build contractor is BAM Construction. The design team from the existing building construction is being utilised to ensure consistency. Construction started in December 2015 and was completed in July 2016, to allow the school to occupy for the 2016/17 school year. The extension is designed to the same specification as the existing building and is sympathetic to the scale of the original. The design maximises natural lighting levels and ventilation to ensure a pleasant environment for all users. The amount of playground area has also been maximised as this was an issue that the school had with the existing build. Despite adverse weather conditions over the Winter period the project was completed successfully on time and to budget.

135


29th August 2017 Agenda Item No 13

Education & Children’s Services Directorate

Revenue Budget 2017-18 Projected Outturn Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director Education and Children’s Services Eileen Rowand, Executive Director Finance & Corporate Services

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide members with an update on the forecast financial position for the 2017/18 financial year, for the areas in scope of the Education and Children’s Services Committee.

Recommendation(s)

Members are asked to: a. consider the current financial performance and activity as detailed in this

report;

b. note that officers will continue to manage the budget whilst ensuring that the risks associated with Looked After Children are appropriately managed;

c. note that the Education and Children’s Services Directorate continues to implement the Strategy approved by the Executive Committee on 13 January 2015, to reduce the reliance on purchased care placements and increase the number of children who can safely be looked after at home or in kinship care.


The Directorate remains committed to managing the budget and developing and implementing the strategy to address the demographic pressures on the budget.


The Directorate requires to discharge its duty as Corporate Parent to all Looked After Children and to support their families accordingly. It is committed to proactive management of the budget to reduce the level of care placements whilst managing the risk to individuals.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA has not been completed and is not necessary as no change or revision to existing policies and practices is proposed.

Consultation

None

136

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the projected outturn for the Education and Children’s Services Directorate (excluding Criminal Justice), for the 2017-18 Revenue Budget, and to highlight the major variances as at June 2017. This is the first monitoring report to the Strategic Committee for the 2017-18 financial year.

2.0 Major Variances

2.1 Education and Children’s Services 2017-18 Projected Outturn

2.1.1 The projected overspend, for this financial year, for Education and Children’s Services (excluding Criminal Justice) is £1.151m. A summary of the 2017-18 projected out-turn is detailed in Appendix 1. This shows projected expenditure against budget across the service headings within the Directorate. It should be noted that the balances are extracted from the ledger system and are shown as rounded millions. This may mean that there are some rounding differences contained within the appendices, but these are immaterial values that do not impact on the overall financial position. The following paragraphs provide a brief explanation of the main areas where there are significant variances (+/-£0.250m) to budgets.

2.2 Education Service

2.2.1 DSM Budget: - projected underspend (£2.504m)

Under the Devolved School Management Scheme, schools’ budgets are calculated and allocated with reference to a range of formulae based on appropriate data, for example school roll. The Scheme also recognises that schools require some flexibility to manage resource between financial years and to assist in meeting this a carry forward of under / over spend of up to 2.5% of service managed budget is allowed. Schools carried forward £2.535m into 2017-18 under this provision. The position reported above mainly reflects this carry forward. This is currently a high level projection as schools’ budgets require to be adjusted to reflect the updated school rolls at August 2017. Once this exercise has been completed a more accurate picture of the level of projected underspend will be available.

2.2.2 In addition to the core DSM budget, the schools’ Pupil Equity Fund (PEF) has also been added to their devolved budgets. Therefore, £9.787m of the budget within the DSM relates to this funding. It has been assumed that all of the funding will be spent in 2017-18 or carried forward to 2018-19, per the guidance from the Scottish Government. There is therefore no variance included in the above in respect of PEF.

2.2.3 Non DSM/Childcare: - projected overspend £3.660m

The projected overspend above is mainly in relation to maternity pay £1.781m and long-term absence costs £0.664m, as these costs in relation to teachers are borne by the non-devolved central Education budget. A further overspend is currently projected in relation to school transport costs of £0.458m. The remainder of the projected overspend is in relation to smaller

137

variances on Supplies and Services, of £0.225m, and Third Party Payments of £0.206m. The service is taking steps to reduce the level of projected overspend through effective budget management and a constraint on spend.

2.3 Children and Families Service – projected underspend £0.005m

2.3.1 The projected position for the service reflects the positive impact of the Children and Families Strategy approved in January 2015. A key aim of the strategy is to reduce the reliance on high cost care placements by investing in early intervention to support children and their families and enable them to stay safely at home, and also by investing in kinship care. At this point in the financial year the projection anticipates that the Children and Families service will come in on budget. However, it should be highlighted that placement levels are subject to fluctuation and there is a risk that an increase in placements may occur in order to safeguard children.

3.0 Savings

3.1 Revenue Budget Savings 2017-18 3.1.1 The combined savings target, as approved in the 2017-20 budget process

and earlier budget processes for the Directorate (excluding Criminal Justice), for this financial year is £5.047m. An indication of the forecast achievement of savings is attached at Appendix 5. Savings anticipated to be achieved are indicated by a green RAG status coding. Those indicated amber are where the saving is currently expected to be achieved in part or where evidence of reduced spend through lower charges received is required before the saving can be flagged as green.

3.1.2 Savings flagged as red in Appendix 5 require significant work to be

undertaken before these savings can be achieved. Additional information in relation to the savings where there is currently a variance are included below:-

- cleaning costs – savings were related to a reduction in service, however

increases in cleaning charges have offset this

- 3S Savings – achievement of saving is delayed and will be achieved upon implementation of a review across schools

- Income generation, incl. Pan Authority, Performance Systems,

Commercial Business Unit and Work with other local authorities – officers are developing proposals to generate income from these sources and the RAG status will be updated as income is received

- Joint Headships – delay in implementation as this will be embedded into budgets as part of a wider review of staffing to be undertaken

- Vacancy management / supplies and services – this previously temporary saving is now permanent within the budget. Projection reflects current position on vacancy management but will be updated during the financial year as part of budget monitoring

138

- Organisational Design – service to identify suitable opportunities to

achieve this saving.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1 The projected outturn for the Education and Children’s Services Directorate

Revenue Budget (excluding Criminal Justice) for 2017-18 is a projected overspend of £1.151m. The dominant factors within the projection are the projected overspend in respect of long term absence and maternity leave within Education, and other smaller overspends and issues relating to delayed savings. These are offset by the projected underspend within DSM, due to continuing teaching vacancies and shortage of supply.

List of Appendices

1. Education and Children’s Services Revenue Monitor 2017-18

2. Educational Services – Devolved

3. Educational Services – Non Devolved

4. Children and Families excluding Criminal Justice

5. Savings Tracker

Report Contacts:

Shelagh McLean Alison Binnie

Head of Education (Equity & System Imp.) Finance Business Partner (ECS)

Rothesay House Fife House

Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 444229 Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 441058

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

139

BUDGET MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY Appendix 1

2017-18

EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

SERVICE

CURRENT

BUDGET 2017-

18

PROJECTED

OUTTURN

2017-18

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

£m £m £m %

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 371.628 372.780 1.152 0.31%


EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - DEVOLVED 194.932 192.428 (2.504)

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - NON DEVOLVED 112.105 115.766 3.660

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 64.591 64.586 (0.005)

EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES 371.628 372.780 1.151

140


2017-18

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - DEVOLVED

SERVICE

CURRENT

BUDGET 2017-

18

PROJECTED

OUTTURN

2017-18

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

£m £m £m %

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 194.932 192.428 (2.504) -1.28%


PRIMARY EDUCATION 95.263 94.233 (1.029)

SECONDARY EDUCATION 91.602 90.526 (1.076)

NURSERY EDUCATION 4.039 3.639 (0.399)

SPECIAL EDUCATION 4.028 4.029 0.001

AREA GROUPS 0.000 0.000 0.000

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION 0.000 0.000 0.000

STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.000 0.000 0.000

FIFE MUSIC SERVICE 0.000 0.000 0.000

SUPPORT SERVICES 0.000 0.000 0.000

GENERAL EDUCATION 0.000 0.000 0.000

CHILDCARE 0.000 0.000 0.000

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - DEVOLVED 194.932 192.428 (2.504)

DESCRIPTION

CURRENT

BUDGET 2017-

18

PROJECTED

OUTTURN

2017-18

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

£m £m £m %

SERVICE MANAGED NET EXPENDITURE 194.932 192.428 (2.504) -1.28%

INCOME (0.087) (0.087) 0.000

EXTERNAL INCOME 0.000 0.000 0.000

INTERNAL INCOME (0.087) (0.087) 0.000

EXPENDITURE 195.019 192.515 (2.504)

EMPLOYEE COSTS 187.805 187.806 0.002

PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 0.194 0.194 0.000

TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 0.141 0.141 0.000

SUPPLIES & SERVICES 5.171 2.665 (2.505)

THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS 1.708 1.708 0.000

TRANSFER PAYMENTS 0.000 0.000 0.000

CAPITAL FINANCE & CHARGES 0.000 0.000 0.000

SUPPORT SERVICES CHARGES 0.000 0.000 0.000

141


2017-18

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - NON DEVOLVED

CURRENT 17-18

PROJECTED 17-

18

SERVICE

CURRENT

BUDGET 2017-

18

PROJECTED

OUTTURN

2017-18

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

£m £m £m %

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 112.105 115.766 3.660 3.27%


PRIMARY EDUCATION 24.923 26.022 1.099

SECONDARY EDUCATION 27.718 28.333 0.615

NURSERY EDUCATION 25.504 23.775 (1.729)

SPECIAL EDUCATION 27.782 28.393 0.611

AREA GROUPS 0.540 0.548 0.007

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION 3.028 2.983 (0.044)

STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.212 0.212 0.000

FIFE MUSIC SERVICE 1.352 1.339 (0.013)

SUPPORT SERVICES 2.776 2.617 (0.159)

GENERAL EDUCATION (3.716) (0.461) 3.255

CHILDCARE 1.985 2.004 0.020

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES - NON DEVOLVED 112.105 115.766 3.660

DESCRIPTION

CURRENT

BUDGET 2017-

18

PROJECTED

OUTTURN

2017-18

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

£m £m £m %

SERVICE MANAGED NET EXPENDITURE 112.105 115.766 3.660 3.27%

INCOME (11.257) (11.056) 0.201

EXTERNAL INCOME (10.797) (10.518) 0.279

INTERNAL INCOME (0.460) (0.538) (0.078)

EXPENDITURE 123.362 126.821 3.459

EMPLOYEE COSTS 60.723 63.421 2.697

PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 28.453 28.223 (0.231)

TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 13.708 14.235 0.526

SUPPLIES & SERVICES 13.621 13.846 0.225

THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS 4.928 5.134 0.206

TRANSFER PAYMENTS 1.688 1.688 0.000

CAPITAL FINANCE & CHARGES 0.000 0.000 0.000

SUPPORT SERVICES CHARGES 0.239 0.275 0.036

142


2017-18

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

SERVICE

CURRENT

BUDGET 2017-

18

PROJECTED

OUTTURN

2017-18

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

PROJECTED

VARIANCE

£m £m £m %

SERVICE MANAGED NET BUDGET 64.591 64.586 (0.005) -0.01%


C & F WEST 3.664 3.664 0.000 0.00%

C & F EAST 4.624 4.624 0.000 0.00%

C & F FIFE WIDE 41.642 41.637 (0.005) -0.01%

C & F RESIDENTIAL 3.044 3.036 (0.008) -0.27%

C & F FAMILY PLACEMENT 9.553 9.553 0.000 0.00%

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICE 6.741 6.358 (0.383) -5.68%

CHILDREN & FAMILIES SENIOR MANAGER 2.063 2.071 0.008 0.39%

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 64.591 64.586 (0.005) -0.01%

143

Appendix 5

2015-18 0.038 0.038 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.020 0.020 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.010 0.010 0.000 Green

2015-18 0.050 0.000 (0.050) Red

2015-18 0.097 0.000 (0.097) Red

2016-19 0.055 0.055 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.105 0.105 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.167 0.167 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.062 0.062 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.100 0.100 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.353 0.353 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.100 0.050 (0.050) Amber

2017-20 0.055 0.055 0.000 Green

2017-20 0.150 0.000 (0.150) Red

2017-20 0.227 0.000 (0.227) Red

2017-20 0.160 0.000 (0.160) Red

2017-20 0.090 0.090 0.000 Green

2017-20 0.250 0.000 (0.250) Red

2017-20 0.100 0.000 (0.100) Red

2017-20 0.100 0.100 0.000 Green

2017-20 0.600 0.600 0.000 Green

2017-20 1.101 0.550 (0.551) Amber

2017-20 0.150 0.000 (0.150) Red

2017-20 0.034 0.000 (0.034) Red

4.194 2.375 (1.819)

Rag Status Key:-

Savings

Target

£m

Overall

Forecast

£m

(Under)/

over

£m


Amber 1.201 0.600 (0.601)

Red 1.218 0.000 (1.218)

Total 4.194 2.375 (1.819)

Red - Major issues addressed before any saving can be realised

Summary

Early Years Review

Early Education Transformation Delivery


Income from charging

Printing & Telephony

Grounds Maintenance

Waste Collection

Cleaning costs

Workforce Planning

Leadership Models - Stand Alone Nurseries

Leadership Models - Secondary Management

3S savings

Central Management & Support costs (excl 3S)

FIFE COUNCIL


(Under)/

over

£m

Savings

Target

£m

Overall

Forecast

£m

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Approved

Budget

Year

Title of Savings Proposal Rag

Status

Look innovatively at the connection between the Education

Officer role and school Clusters

Pan authority income generation

Increase number of Joint Headships

Exporting performance systems to other Councils

Grand Total

Amber - minor issues/minor reduction value/delay in delivery

Commercialisation

Introduce income targets for schools not currently used as

community assets

Create a commercial business unit to generate income

Working with other local authorities to capture efficiencies from

more streamlined / efficient working

Developing the digital environment - Glow and 21st Century

Learning

Redistribution of Teaching Staff to Reduce Current Vacancies

Vacancy Management / Supplies & Services

Organisational Design - Opportunities tbc

Music Service - Additional Income

144

Appendix 5

2016-19 0.007 0.007 0.000 Green

2016-19 0.250 0.250 0.000 Green

2017-20 0.500 0.500 0.000 Green

2017-20 0.096 0.096 0.000 Amber

0.853 0.853 0.000

Rag Status Key:-

Savings

Target

£m

Overall

Forecast

£m

(Under)/

over

£m


Amber 0.096 0.096 0.000

Red 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total 0.853 0.853 0.000

Summary

Amber - minor issues/minor reduction value/delay in delivery

Red - Major issues addressed before any saving can be realised

FIFE COUNCIL


CHILDREN & FAMILIES & CJS

Approved

Budget

Year

Title of Savings Proposal

Savings

Target

£m

Overall

Forecast

£m

(Under)/

over

£m

Rag Status


Commissioning of Services

Acceleration of previously approved strategy

Corporate Savings - Vacancy Management / Supplies & Services

Grand Total

145

EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMITTEE

Date 29th August 2017 Agenda Item No 14

Education and Children’s Services Directorate

Capital Investment Plan 2017-2018: Progress Report Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director, Education and Children’s Services Eileen Rowand, Executive Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Wards Affected: All

Purpose

This report provides members with information on the overall progress of the Education and Children’s Services Directorate’s capital programme for the current financial year 2017-18, as well as informing members of progress on our major projects. Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that members; i) note the financial position as detailed in this report, and ii) note that the budget has been revised to reflect the outcome of the Capital Plan

review.


There are no direct resource implications. At the present time the Directorate is projecting a final outturn of £14.446m. The plan is showing a slight variance of £0.035m in the current year, as at June 2017. Legal & Risk Implications

There are no legal implications arising from this report. However there is a risk that the actual outturn will vary from the projection contained in the report. Any potential over or under spend will be managed within the capital programme in 2017-18 and the programme re-profiled over future years.

Impact Assessment

An EqIA has not been completed and is not necessary as no change or revision to existing policies is proposed. Consultation

Not Applicable.

146

1.0 Background

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information on the overall progress of projects within the capital programme for the current year, as well as providing an update on projects under individual headings within the capital plan.

1.2 This report focuses on one year; the projected outturn is currently £14.446m, however this may change as projects develop throughout the financial year.

1.3 Appendix 1 provides the cost detail for individual projects within the capital plan where expenditure exceeds £1m.

1.4 Appendix 2 provides the projected final outturn for the Education and Children’s Services Directorate for the year 2017-18.

2.0 Issues and Options 2.1 Key Issues / Risks

2.2 Building Fife’s Future (BFF) programme This programme received additional funding as part of the budget setting exercise in February 2017. Funding was allocated to support the future renewal or replacement of our priority secondary schools i.e. Inverkeithing, Woodmill, St Columba’s, Glenwood and Glenrothes High Schools. Based on the knowledge that the Scottish Government has funded ⅔ rds of the cost of major new schools programmes in the past, use of the £50m allocated within the capital plan will be flexible, to take best advantage of whatever streams of funding come forward from the Scottish Government.

2.3 The reduced class sizes (RCS) theme is projected to be £0.036m overspent. This will be addressed in future months by transferring budget from Environmental Improvements. The overspend is due to providing improvements to the sinks areas as part of the project to increase the number of teaching areas at Pathhead Primary School. The project was part funded by both the RCS theme and the environmental Improvement theme.

2.4 Major Projects 2.5 Appendix 1 provides a summary of the projected outturn for the major projects

within the Education and Children’s Services Capital Plan. The majority of these projects are now complete, with only the new Madras College showing significant spend remaining (of £49.917m). A planning application notice for the new school at Langlands will be submitted in the autumn.

2.6 In terms of targets met, Waid Academy opened as scheduled. This project created

a new building which integrates pupils and staff from Waid Academy, CLD facilities along with a Customer Service Point and library. The new facility also has a café which is open to members of the public.

2.6 Potential Risks and Actions

The Scottish Government has a commitment to undertake the expansion of early learning and childcare capacity across Scotland by increasing provision for 3 and 4 year olds, along with those 2 year old who will benefit most, by 2020. Funding has

147

been provided for 2017-18 and is included within the capital plan. Funding for future years is still to be advised.

2.7 Financial Performance – 2017-18 Provisional Outturn 2.8 Appendix 2 details the projected outturn for 2017-18 against the main projects and

Investment Themes.

2.9 Overall, projects within Building Fife’s Future are reporting on budget. 2.10 The Looked after Children investment theme will be fully spent this year. Two

projects are currently at the detail design state and it is anticipated that, if the design is approved, work can commence on site in January 2018. The project to provide a new children’s home at Raith Gates is also expected to commence on site in January 2018.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1 The projected outturn position for the capital programme for the Education and Children’s Services Directorate is currently £14.446m. A projected overspend of £0.035m is highlighted, however this position will improve once budget transfers have been processed.

4.2 The management of capital resources requires us to look across financial years, as

well as within individual years. The current year performance is only a snapshot of the existing plan and the Directorate will adjust expenditure levels within future years of the plan to accommodate the advancement of projects.

List of Appendices

1. Project Cost Monitor 2. Capital Plan 2017-18 Forecast Expenditure Background Papers

Not applicable Dawn Cook Louise Playford Team Manager (Capital Programme) Service Manager (School Estate) Telephone: 08451 55 55 55 + 442829 Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 444203 Email. [email protected] Email. [email protected] Shelagh McLean Alison Binnie Head of Education & Children’s Services Finance Business Partner Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 444229 Telephone: 03451 55 55 55 + 441058 Email. [email protected] Email. [email protected]

148



ACTUAL SPEND TO

DATE

REMAINING SPEND

PROJECTION

TOTAL PROJECTED

OUTTURN

TOTAL PROJECTED

BUDGET VARIANCE VARIANCE

PROJECT SERVICE £m £m £m £m £m

DUNFERMLINE HS NEW BUILD E&CS 39.020 0.000 39.020 39.020 0.000 0.00%

WINDMILL COMMUNITY CAMPUS E&CS 26.131 0.556 26.687 26.687 0.000 0.00%

LEVENMOUTH ACADEMY E&CS 6.241 0.221 6.461 6.461 0.000 0.00%

MADRAS COLLEGE NEW BUILD E&CS 3.277 49.917 53.194 53.194 0.000 0.00%

WAID ACADEMY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION E&CS 22.455 1.702 24.158 24.158 0.000 0.00%

RIMBLETON HOME REPROVISION E&CS 0.188 1.207 1.394 1.394 0.000 0.00%

97.312 53.602 150.914 150.914 0.000 0.00%

149



PROVISIONAL BUDGET

17-18PROJECTED

OUTTURN PROJECTED VARIANCE

PROJECTED OUTTURN AS A % OF

PLAN

2018-27 APPROVED

CAPITAL PLAN

CAPITAL PROJECT £m £m £m £m

BUILDING FIFE'S FUTURE

TO BE PROGRAMMED 0.499 0.499 0.000 100.0% 57.400

AUCHMUTY HS NEW BUILD 0.100 0.100 0.000 100.0% 0.000

WINDMILL COMMUNITY CAMPUS 0.198 0.198 0.000 100.0% 0.000

MADRAS COLLEGE NEW BUILD 2.500 2.500 0.000 100.0% 47.518

WAID ACADEMY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION 2.069 2.069 0.000 100.0% 0.000

LEVENMOUTH ACADEMY 0.204 0.204 0.000 100.0% 0.000

TOTAL BUILDING FIFE'S FUTURE 5.571 5.571 0.000 100.0% 104.918

INVESTMENT THEMES

EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS 0.425 0.425 0.000 100.0% 2.456

REDUCED CLASS SIZES (0.036) 0.000 0.036 0.0% 0.000

WIND & WATERTIGHT 1.293 1.293 0.000 100.0% 2.628

CURRICULUM ENHANCEMENTS 0.615 0.615 0.000 100.0% 1.360

UNDER ONE ROOF 1.084 1.084 0.000 100.0% 7.122

SAFER SCHOOLS 0.061 0.061 0.000 100.0% 1.000

FIRE PROGRAMME 0.351 0.351 0.000 100.0% 3.238

ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAMME 0.266 0.266 0.000 100.0% 2.954

ICT PROGRAMME 0.329 0.329 0.000 100.0% 2.853

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS 0.001 0.000 (0.001) 0.0% 0.000

OUTDOOR EDUCATION 0.035 0.035 0.000 100.0% 0.000

EARLY YEARS 3.148 3.148 0.000 100.0% 1.627

SUSTAINABLE SCHOOL ESTATES 0.771 0.771 0.000 100.0% 0.015

TOTAL INVESTMENT THEMES 8.342 8.377 0.035 100.4% 25.253

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LOOKED AFER CHILDREN HOMES REPROVISION 0.300 0.300 0.000 100.0% 0.907

LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN 0.198 0.198 0.000 100.0% 0.000

TOTAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.498 0.498 0.000 100.0% 0.907

TOTAL EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES 14.411 14.446 0.035 100.2% 131.078

150



Improving and Developing Child Protection Practice in Fife

Report by: Carrie Lindsay, Executive Director Education and Children’s Services

Wards Affected: All

Purpose:

This report outlines to members how children’s services within Fife learn from Significant Case Reviews (SCR) and other quality assurance measures in Fife to help continually improve child protection practice.

The report gives information on our current child protection processes as well as our learning from past events. This should give reassurance to the Education and Children’s Services Committee regarding the services we provide to protect children in Fife.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that the Committee notes the range of work being undertaken by services in respect of developing and improving child protection support to families.

Resource Implications:

None.

Legal & Risk Implications:

Significant Case Reviews are governed by guidance from the Scottish Government. Fife have been compliant with this in undertaking reviews at a local level.

Impact Assessment:

An EqIA is not required because the report does not propose a change or revision to existing policies and practices.

Consultation:

Not applicable.

151

1.0 Background

1.1 This report outlines the role that SCRs play in the monitoring and evaluation of child protection activity and how the reviews fit into the wider quality assurance of how we protect children across Fife. It also outlines some of the key improvement activity that has arisen from the work undertaken to date. There has been a degree of publicity in recent months in respect of the use of Significant Case Reviews (SCRs) in Fife and this report will help to show how these both identify areas for improvement and provide an opportunity for development of services.

1.2 Significant Case Reviews are one of a suite of measures that services use to evaluate and quality assure child protection work. Other measures include regular monthly case file audits, annual thematic multi-agency audits, Children’s Services Inspections and staff and service user feedback forums. Single service pieces of self-evaluation are undertaken as part of a programme on an annual basis that is overseen by the Child Protection Committee. The social work service, in conjunction with the Care Inspectorate, has undertaken a significant self-evaluation exercise which was completed in April this year (Appendix 1). This range of activity has helped to establish key improvement areas for all services and to focus activity where the benefit to families will be the greatest.

1.3 The use of Significant Case Reviews (SCRs) is the most high profile approach in identifying areas for learning. These reviews are established by guidance from the Scottish Government for implementation through local Child Protection Committees and Chief Officer Groups. The criteria for an SCR is where a child has been significantly harmed or died and that there are concerns about the nature of the professional support given to the family. These issues can involve any of the services within the children’s service partnership and is not solely reserved for social work matters.

1.4 When services in Fife undertake an SCR, these are commissioned by the Child Protection Committee (CPC) and will be signed off by the Chief Officer Group for Public Safety (COPS) currently chaired by Steve Grimmond, Chief Executive, Fife Council.

1.5 The children’s service partnership in Fife has published three significant case review reports in recent years, all concerning child deaths. (Appendix 2 – hyperlink). These reports have been undertaken by independent lead reviewers commissioned by the CPC for this purpose. The reviewers have been experts in child protection in their own field and all were independent of services within Fife.

1.6 The guidance in respect of SCRs was updated in 2015 by the Scottish Government. However, there remains a wide variation in practice in the relation to how SCRs are conducted across Scotland and this is being examined further by the current national Child Protection Improvement Programme being undertaken by the Scottish Government.

1.7 The Care Inspectorate in the Fife Children’s Services Inspection report published in 2016 noted that the children’s services partnership in Fife “approach to issues identified through SCRs displayed a maturity and willingness to look closely at and learn from areas of difficulty”.

152


2.1 Within Fife, the outcome from SCRs and the range of other quality assurance activity is considered in detail by both the CPC and the COPS group and informs the priorities for action within the CPC Improvement Plan (Appendix 4).

2.2 Individual actions arising from each SCR are subject to separate action plans which are monitored by the CPC. Examples of the type of work undertaken through these actions plans include systems wide issues such as the the development of the Child Wellbeing Pathway, which helps to ensure good communication between services to make sure families get the help they need when they need it, alongside new procedural changes covering, for example, forensic medical examinations and multi-agency work with high risk offenders. The changes for Education and Children’s services arising from the most recently published SCR are laid out below.

2.3 Fife Council Education Service

As part of the Interagency Referral Discussion process, the Education service now routinely seeks information regarding other children within the same household. The school would be telephoned on the morning of the Interagency Referral Discussion by education alerting them to an email coming in from education that they must respond to by answering five specific questions around the children’s wellbeing. This must be returned in a timely manner so the information can support the Interagency Referral Discussion.

The Child Wellbeing Pathway has been rolled out to all schools.

Police ‘Cause for Concern’ forms are routinely shared with schools where children are involved.

The route for referral to the Children’s Reporter has been streamlined, linked to the wellbeing pathway and school coordination processes e.g. School Liaison Group.

Child Protection Coordinators have mandatory annual training that takes account of assessment and recording procedures as well as all current policy guidance.

Getting It Right (GIR) groups have reshaped their agenda to focus more on risk and child protection. GIR training has been delivered within schools.

The Education Care and Welfare form has been updated to include a wellbeing assessment tool.

Education Child Protection guidelines are being reviewed and updated in line with local and national policy.

SEEMIS training on record keeping and planning is being rolled out to named persons.

Additional guidance on information sharing has been provided to Education staff and this has been reinforced through a structured training programme.

153

2.4 Fife Children & Families Social Work Service

Staff capacity and supervisory capacity within front line social work teams and the child protection team has been significantly increased. Supervision arrangements have been enhanced by 17 newly created supervisory senior practitioners posts and a refreshed supervision policy is in place. Peer support groups and group supervision are now embedded and ongoing. Monthly case evaluation audits have been embedded for two years and continue to be evaluated.

The Interagency Referral Discussions / joint interviewing process has been reviewed to ensure interviews with any children who are in the same household and / or contact is now considered in all investigations. The need for a medical assessment is discussed at the Interagency Referral Discussion.

New Video Recording Interviewing equipment has been secured and older, unreliable equipment replaced, providing increased capacity and improved resilience in support of joint interviews of children.

A number of processes have been reviewed and updated including: case recording guidance; first contact arrangements to ensure escalating concerns are addressed; assessment guidance; specific guidance for recording children’s and parents’ views; guidance in relation to working with hostile or non-engaging families; information sharing. The duty process and chronology guidance have been reviewed and updated. The child wellbeing pathway is embedded and used frequently.

New arrangements for multi-agency meetings through the child wellbeing pathway are in place to assist with the coordination of interagency support to families.

Single agency and multi-agency training is in place for all staff in relation to child protection.

Quality assurance and auditing practice has been reviewed and expanded.

2.5 In addition to specific tasks arising from the reviews, the CPC has undertaken further work to try to identify any underlying common factors across the cases. This also involved reference to the other quality assurance activity that regularly takes place. This activity identified six key themes that were seen to be safeguards to best practice and positive outcomes for children and their families. It was recognised that when these elements of best practice were in place, the chances of a positive outcome were maximised and, conversely, when elements were missing, the risk to children increased. The identification of these six key themes has helped to focus improvement activity where it is likely to have the biggest benefit to children and their families.

2.6 This work mirrors the findings from the national retrospective review of SCRs undertaken by the Care Inspectorate which identified a number of key features within significant case reviews across Scotland. The findings of this work identified a range of common issues across Scotland including: information sharing; assessment and planning; engagement with children and families and issues of neglect.

154

2.7 The identified common themes within Fife were:

The child at the centre – Professionals should be vigilant in maintaining the child at the centre of planning for support to families. The risks to of false or disproportionate optimism in respect of parents’ potential to improve should be fully understood and resisted.

Relationships – between professionals children and parents should be supporting and challenging as appropriate

Quality of assessment and planning and the need to consider cumulative concerns – assessment should be based on recognised well researched assessment tools and use a range of techniques including chronologies

Information exchange and communication – effective and proportionate sharing of relevant information supported by clear recording within an agreed multi agency framework which identifies a clear line of responsibility for coordination of actions

Early intervention and its interface with statutory services - clear understanding of engagement across roles and agencies to help achieve the appropriate balance between between universal provision and use of targeted services

Professional support and oversight – effective and accessible lines of supervision for all staff within a culture of constructive challenge.

2.8 For services within Fife, the grouping together of these issues has allowed all services to target their development activity and has assisted in monitoring of change and improvement. It has also helped in achieving a balance between task oriented change activity and more qualitative analysis of how well services are making a difference to families. It has helped to address both systems’ issues such as staff development and supervision arrangements alongside new procedural changes and more detailed case management requirements.

2.9 The learning from these processes on an interagency basis is overseen by the Child Protection Committee and is reflected within the Child Protection Committee annual report and closely monitored through the improvement plan (Appendices 3 and 4).

2.10 The impact of this work on improving the circumstances of children and families is also carefully monitored through single agency audit and review processes. A recent example of the type of monitoring work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes was the self-evaluation exercise undertaken by the social work service. This was significant piece of work which allowed the service to have a clear idea of the quality of its provision for children and families and to confirm areas for further development (Appendix 1).

2.11 Formal external validation of the quality of services is undertaken by the Care Inspectorate. In the recent Children’s Service inspection published in 2016, Inspectors found that the impact of services on the lives of children and young people was good and the impact on families was very good. Similarly, the quality of services in assessing need and risk was evaluated as good. This is in line with services’ own self-evaluation. The full list of gradings is contained within the CPC annual report on page 4.

155

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 Services in Fife have a range of measures in place to monitor and evaluate child protection work. This includes approaches such as regular case file auditing, staff engagement and service wide self-evaluation. Significant Case Reviews are an important element of this range of activity and represent some of the most sensitive work that can be undertaken by the children’s service partnership. They often reflect tragic circumstances for children and can also be a valuable source of learning for agencies as they seek to improve their support to the most vulnerable children.

3.2 For each SCR in Fife, the review has been undertaken by someone independent of services who are a recognised expert in their field. This approach has helped in identifying key learning from each of the children’s circumstances. The issues arising from SCRs have been subject to detailed improvement plans which have been closely monitored by the Child Protection Committee. These action plans are now complete for all of the reviews.

3.3 In addition, the CPC has undertaken work to try to identify any common themes within the reviews. This work has mirrored similar work undertaken at a national level by the Care Inspectorate and has helped to focus our improvement activity here in Fife.

3.4 The publication of the reviews has understandably generated significant publicity regarding the cases and it can often be a difficult balance in publishing information about family circumstances and allowing the public and other services information about what has happened. It should be noted that the approach within Fife is amongst the most open of any area in publishing the outcomes of reviews.

List of Appendices

1. Social work self-evaluation report April 2017

2. Three significant case review reports published in recent years by the children’s service partnership in Fife. :http://www.fifechildprotection.org.uk/minisites/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&pageid=9DF4A080-C789-7B03-1C1A2C1F584CBCCA&siteID=AA73CD9C-E7FE-C7EA-06436BFC786E1C8E

3. Child Protection Committee annual report 2016/17

4. Child protection Committee improvement plan 2017- 2020

Background Papers

The following papers were relied on in the preparation of this report in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973:

Significant Case Review Guidance Scottish Government 2015

Care Inspectorate – Learning from significant case reviews in Scotland 2016

Care Inspectorate Fife Children’s Service Inspection report 2016

Report Contact

D Dunlop Head of Service Rothesay House Telephone: 03451 555555 + 441189 - Email – [email protected]

156

Fife Council

Education and Children’s Services

Children and Families Social Work

Self-Evaluation Exercise

157

1. Introduction The self-evaluation exercise has been designed to produce an analytical review of assessment, practice and planning from the development of the Children and Family Social Work Service strategy in 2014 to December 2016. The review of social work case work is a part of the Education and Children’s Services programme of quality assurance. Over the past four years there have been a number of critical incidents which have led to the use of the significant case review process. The Chief Social Work Officer therefore decided it was important to seek reassurance that the Authority’s policies and procedures were being applied effectively. The findings contained within this report will be used to focus improvement activity across the social work service throughout 2017. The work of the team commenced on 1st December 2016 and concluded on 31st March 2017. The team comprised a supervising senior practitioner, two officers with responsibility for improving outcomes and an operational service manager, who was the review lead. The senior manager (improving outcomes) commissioned the review, meeting regularly with the review lead and receiving weekly updates and summary findings. The self-evaluation activity was supported by the service’s link inspector from the Care Inspectorate and a ‘critical friend’, both of whom offered an independent assessment of practice. The exercise has provided Fife with the opportunity to highlight areas of good practice and identify areas for further development. 2. Methodology The exercise examined practice within 15 operational Children and Family teams across the authority through the scrutinising of 135 case records and files. The records were selected to ensure a broad range of practice. This included children subject to child protection measures, looked after and accommodated children, children affected by disability, children subject to investigation by the child protection team and children deemed to be ‘in need'. Case selection was undertaken at random by business support colleagues who chose six cases in each key category per team, from this the team manager selected three cases per category to achieve a balance of age, gender and allocated worker. The three categories included:

children who were the subject of child protection registration (n45); children who were looked after either at home or away from home (n45); and children who were deemed to be in ‘need’ (n45).

In addition the self-evaluation team received case presentations from the 15 operational teams. These cases were chosen by the team in question and provided an opportunity for discussion and reflection with workers and managers in relation to work with families that was at times innovative, and reflected best practice in its field.

158

A version of the current Fife social work quality assurance monthly pro-forma, amended to include the care inspectorate quality indicators, was used as the case review and recording tool (Supporting Document 1). The tool guided the review through consideration of:

self-evaluation of quality and impact of social work involvement; quality of assessment including chronologies and planning; supervision and quality assurance of practice with a focus on the

importance of using effective relationships (management/team and service user)to achieve best outcomes;

supervision, management and leadership structures; staff support – newly qualified social worker (NQSW), supervising senior

practitioner (SSP) and senior practitioner (SP) meetings, quarterly team meetings ; and

scrutiny of practice: significant case review (SCR) learning, ICR learning, child protection committee (CPC) audits, monthly Quality Assurance (QA), inspection, internal processes.

A multi-agency governance group was established and chaired by Fife's Chief Social Work Officer. This group met on a monthly basis and comprised of the lead officer, the senior manager, lead representatives from health and social care, Police Scotland, education, link inspector from the Care Inspectorate (CI), a commissioned ‘critical friend’ and the independent chair of Fife’s child protection committee. The 'critical friend' and the link inspector joined the team in the best practice presentations. This provided a direct window into current practice, access to oversight structures and offered access to practitioners involved in directly supporting our most vulnerable children and their families. The link inspector cross read one of the files read by the review team and discussed their analysis with them supporting reflective discussion around practice. He further read an additional six files and this provided a level of external validation of the robustness of the review team’s evaluative practice. The self-evaluation team commenced the exercise by considering current research and practice frameworks that underpin good social work practice as noted in the bibliography. Time was taken to discuss ‘thresholds’ within the review team to allow for the development of a shared approach to review and analysis. The link inspector made available the “Joint Inspection of Children's Services, Guidance to support practice review through case file reading, January 2016” as one of the terms of reference. Reference was also made to the findings from the Care Inspectorate report on Fife Children’s Services 2016 and where appropriate, comparisons between these findings and the findings from this exercise have been made. However, the team and the governance group remained clear that their work was not an inspection nor was the exercise designed to consider children’s services across the partnership.

159

3. Fife social work service data and process analysis 3.1 Staff numbers

Over the period evaluated there has been a significant increase in staffing levels within the service. Between 2012 and December 2016 there was a 61% increase in full-time equivalent (FTE), contracted workers, which amounts to 100 new frontline staff. Information provided in 2014 showed that, as a Children and Family Social Work service, Fife was the lowest staffed authority in Scotland apart from Eilean Siar. Currently and despite significant investment, Fife remains in the lowest quartile of authorities in Scotland in relation to staffing.

Recruitment rates are even more significant over the course of the evaluation period, as 80 new staff were recruited (representing an increase of 31% of the total workforce) between 2014 and 2016, (Chart 1, figures include senior practitioners, social workers and social work assistants). This increase in staffing correlates with an observable improvement in many aspects of direct work with children and their families. Caseloads have, as a direct consequence of increased staffing numbers, fallen and this has allowed for a clear focus on the development of relationship-based practice, clearer analysis of children’s situations, improved assessment of risk and improving outcomes for children and families.

This level of recruitment has allowed the service to reduce its reliance on agency staff and reduce the number of changes in social worker experienced by some families. In August 2015 there were 22 agency workers across the front line social work teams and currently there are 3 which is allowing for greater consistency in case work given staff are permanent rather than on short term agency contracts.

174 177

223257

2013 2014 2015 2016

Nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

Year

Chart 1: Numbers of practitioners

160

3.2 Support for practitioners Support for staff is provided in their day-to-day practice through informal support and formal supervision, and also through development networks such as the ‘Newly Qualified Group’, ‘Senior Practitioner Group’ and the ‘Supervising Senior Practitioner Group’. Supervision is offered every 4-6 weeks from either a team manager or supervising senior practitioner. However, newly qualified social workers receive more regular supervision which is enhanced by monthly group supervision. Results received from the survey monkey confirm that 90% of staff are supervised within service standards (Supporting Document 2: Survey Monkey results). This data was of particular interest given the findings from the CI report which detailed that there was some concern in relation to supervision and management oversight across children’s services and leads to reassurance that within the children and family social work service robust supervision and management oversight is in place. 3.3 Case Loads

Average case load size across the service has reduced from 28 (August 2015) to 19 (December 2016).Each case equates to one child. In addition there is scrutiny at service manager level to ensure that no member of staff should have more than 25 cases unless agreed by exception to allow for meaningful opportunities for service user contact and relationship building. 3.4 Child Protection Register Numbers of children whose names are on the child protection register have reduced considerably and are currently below the Scottish average. Scottish Government data records national figures per 1,000 of the population: Fife Scotland 2013 3.3 2.9 2014 3.6 3.2 2015 2.8 3.0 2016 2.5 3.0 Whilst there has been no empirical research, experience and practice within the service suggests that the reduction is a consequence of:

increased staffing numbers which has allowed social workers to intervene at an earlier stage;

growing use of the child wellbeing pathway; and increased understanding within universal services of the function and

purpose of the CPR (see Chart 2 below).

161

3.5 Child Protection Order (CPO) figures CPO figures have reduced considerably over the past three years (see chart 3 below). In a similar way to the reduction of children on the CPR this is seen as a consequence of the increase in the number of social workers within area teams enabling earlier intervention with families in crisis, along with a more extensive use of the child wellbeing pathway (CWP) as a means of ensuring effective multi-agency planning and practice. In addition the benefits of early referrals, where appropriate, to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA); and the impact of early years collaborative work within the wider children’s services have had an impact in supporting families at an earlier stage.

245 242

157145

Dec 2013 Dec 2014 Dec 2015 Dec 2016

Nu

mb

er

Year

Chart 2: Number of Children on the Child Protection Register

104

136

77

54

2013 2014 2015 2016

Nu

mb

er

Year

Chart 3: Number of Child Protection Orders

162

3.6 Looked After Figures Looked After Figures: The number of Looked after Children has reduced from a high point in May 2015, of 1022 to 966 December 2016. As with figures for children placed on the Child Protection Register, whilst there has been no empirical research, experience and practice within the service suggests that the reduction is a consequence of:

increased staffing numbers which has allowed social workers to intervene at an earlier stage;

the work of the Home to Fife project; the work of the Resource panel; the work of the Emergency Support Team; and a shifting culture within teams which emphasises the importance of ‘place’ in

relation to keeping children within their home communities. 3.7 Assessment and report formats Assessment and report formats have been amended within the last three years to ensure they reflect the Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) practice model with an emphasis on ensuring children’s and parent’s views are presented. Chronologies are now a standalone section of the report. Work is currently underway to further improve the quality of chronologies and to ensure they are a live document/tool. Training in report writing is offered to all staff and quality of reports is reviewed independently by Reviewing Officers at looked after reviews and child protection case conferences. 3.8 Guidance/process Guidance/process has been significantly developed in the period under consideration and is detailed within the children and family social work resource pack. Some examples are detailed below:

Work with Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) to produce a joint working protocol between that service and social work. This is being used as a good practice example across other authorities.

The service has developed, actioned and evaluated a new parenting

capacity assessment approach which is supporting staff to carry out this work in a transparent and effective manner.

The child protection team has reviewed and improved procedure in

relation to recording and has refreshed some processes in relation to the interviewing of siblings of a child who is the subject of an initial referral discussion (IRD).

In January 2015 the service developed a monthly self-evaluation process

which involves team managers and senior practitioners reviewing their

163

team’s practice and the impact on children and their families. The impact of this across the service is significant and results in:

30 cases a month (360 per year) are scrutinised by

managers and this work product is shared with service managers, senior manager and the Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO).

The learning from this scrutiny is shared within and

across teams leading to more collaborative working within the service and active learning to improve practice.

The ‘so what?’ question is reflected within the work

thereby placing a clear emphasis on ensuring children and their families are at the centre of practice.

Permanence work has been a priority within the service. Progress is being

made in planning for permanence with a resulting reduction in timescales. The permanence mentoring team has been effective in supporting staff to learn about process and practice relating to permanence through adoption and permanent fostering. Additionally, Permanence and Care Excellence (PACE) are working with staff in a number of tests of change.

3.9 Post qualifying training Post qualifying training has been a priority for the service and extra funding was secured to allow an additional 13 staff to undertake their post-graduate qualification (PQ) certificate in child protection in 2016/17.

15 social workers undertook the PQ in child protection in 2016; 2 social workers undertook the PQ in permanence in 2016; 11 senior practitioners and team managers are undertaking or have

completed the PQ in supervision since 2015; and 10 social work managers attend a leadership course with colleagues from

education. 3.10 Social Work Role/task The social work service has been fully engaged and leading on several aspects of the developing GIRFEC policy/legislative changes: the role of the lead professional; child’s plans and the use of the child wellbeing pathway to support proportionate and effective early intervention. This work has allowed for a developing understanding of the need for a continuum of intervention and a clarification and reclaiming of the social work role and task.

164

4. Analysis of practice Throughout the exercise the focus was on the professional practice of social work and its role in multi-agency working. The exercise was designed specifically to identify learning within this agency but with appropriate consideration being given to any key partnership issues. The self-evaluation exercise identified 13 key areas for social work practice which are detailed below. This builds on the work undertaken within Fife in 2016 which identified six key themes (Appendix 1) considered to be critical in achieving good outcomes. 4.1 Intervening Early/Information Sharing (Links to Key Theme 1) The child wellbeing pathway (CWP) has enhanced and strengthened the initial response to a concern. One example is fewer children being referred multiple times with the subsequent poor outcomes that this can produce (Stanley et al 2011). In the majority, 81% of cases, an assessment of need is available in the file supporting the action to be taken. Some improvement in this area is necessary particularly when children are not subject to child protection or legal orders and it was noted that the 19% of children without an electronically recorded assessment were within this category. The development, implementation, application and use of the CWP is reflected in the files. The value of early intervention with families and the skills of the social worker in participating and managing challenging situations was evidently securing better outcomes.

Across the service there are robust responses to immediacy of risk. In a case involving a six-month old baby who was exposed to risks associated with parental alcohol use and parental substance use. When concerns were first presented by the named person/health, information was immediately gathered from social work, health, criminal justice services and housing files along with extended family and the matter progressed to a multi-agency child protection case conference. Continuing progress was being made which led to securing the child in a safe environment within the family in a kinship arrangement. As a result, the child was able to receive attuned care and consistent routines.

Frequently in their role as the lead professional, social workers are coordinating a response and inviting participation by families, named persons and partner agencies. Child protection processes are used appropriately and best practice approaches are used employing the principles of least intrusive interventions. (Munro 2011).

Fife’s area team duty principles and processes are being embedded.

165

A referral was received by the social work contact centre from clinical psychology in respect of a 13 year old. Concerns centred on his isolation, challenging behaviour and poor school attendance. The local area team responded within one working week. The use of the child wellbeing pathway brought the team together around the young person to share information and create the child’s plan. Information was gathered which supported immediate access to the emergency support team (EST) pending a referral to the multi systemic team (MST).

Timely responses, making good use of the CWP or convening a child protection case conference offers confidence across all services that risks are being managed and needs are being responded to. The team were clear in identifying that there were no critical concerns across the cases subject to scrutiny within this self-evaluation activity.

4.2 Responding to child protection concerns (Links to Key Theme 3) Assessment of risk is well supported through embedded procedures and processes, including use of the child wellbeing pathway (CWP), the looked after review and child protection systems. The service has a strong understanding of the process around case conferences and the structures that are used when a child’s name is placed on the child protection register, such as weekly visits, monthly core groups and regular and effective multi-agency liaison.

Cases where a child may be at immediate risk of harm are being well managed with effective responses. In the case of a 15 year old girl an allegation of sexual harm was referred by education to social work. An immediate response was made to the potential risk of further harm to the young person. An IRD was raised immediately. The multi-agency discussion that followed from the IRD led to a child protection investigation and the subsequent completion of a sexual exploitation risk assessment form (SERAF). The team around this young person quickly came together to share information and agree a plan responding to the risks while also building on the positives.

The circumstances of 45 children who were the subject of child protection registration were read and considered by the self-evaluation team. There is good multi-agency practice across services using procedures and processes that underpin child protection practice in Fife. The areas of concern that lead to a child’s name being placed on Fife’s child protection register include emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, parental drug misuse, parental alcohol abuse and neglect. Attendance at core group meetings by families and partner agencies is good. The views of the child and their family are recorded in the minutes of the case conference and core group meeting. The level of reflection, evident within practice discussions, and the use of the post deregistration meeting to critically consider decision making are positive features of practice.

166

4.3 Developing and maintaining chronologies (Links to Key Theme 3) All children who were looked after or on the child protection register have a social work chronology which is multi-agency in nature. Of the 45 children who were deemed to be ‘in need’ and receiving voluntary support, 26 had a chronology in place to assist with assessment although this was not a required process for this area of casework. The refreshed chronology guidance now makes it a requirement that all children open to the social work service will have a multi-agency chronology (Supporting Document 3: Multi-Agency Chronology Guidance 2017). Across all child services, chronologies require attention to ensure they remain a live and progressive tool that assists in understanding the “lived experience of the child” (Helm 2010; Scottish Government 2012; Care Inspectorate 2017). This has been identified as an issue across Scotland and was a specific concern raised in the 2016 CI report when 50% of chronologies across all services in Fife were noted to be “not fit for purpose”. Recent guidance issued by the Care Inspectorate has been incorporated within both new service guidance and the guidance drawn up by the multi-agency chronology group. In some cases, chronologies are not specific to the individual child but detail the family’s life. When there is a large sibling group chronologies need to be individualised in order to retain sight of each child’s needs and circumstances.

The evaluation exercise considered all 116 chronologies. They vary in quality and content. Some chronologies are cluttered with insignificant events. Positive events are not recorded in most chronologies which reflects the reality that this is a work in progress. The service should strengthen the integration of a chronology within case recording so that they become a working tool which actively supports practice and decision making. During the best practice presentations staff were able to describe clearly to the team that a chronology can assist with judgement when a critical decision needs to be made.

4.4 Assessing Risk (Links to Key Themes 2 & 3) No child forming part of the sample reviewed was at immediate risk of harm. The practice in response to risk is of a high standard. An 8 year old boy was referred by his head teacher. His home conditions were poor and there was evidence of neglect, with the child attending school unkempt and hungry. A case conference was convened and a referral was made to SCRA. However, social work continued to lead on planning for, and supporting, the child and his family. A referral was made to the family nurture hub as there were younger children in the family, the housing service engaged and offered advice. Social work completed weekly home visits and connected the family with positive opportunities in their community. Over time the family engaged with the plan for their son and built a positive relationship with professionals. Change emerged in the household and positive outcomes for the child were achieved.

167

There is a sound understanding of risk across the service and any concerns around the safety of a child are receiving a timely response. Services are working well together to reduce immediate risks.

The use of the national risk assessment framework, “my world” triangle and resilience matrix is integral to most of the cases reviewed. The wellbeing indicators, are referenced in all cases (Scottish Government 2012). In the cases where these frameworks are applied they assist with judgment and decision making, leading to good practice and a clear sense of the plan. Where genograms1 are used they add value to the quality of the assessment. It is a recommendation from this review that genograms should be adopted as a standard part of procedure as appropriate and that the wider family should be assessed as potential support at an early stage. In assessing a complex and large family the genogram was critical in ensuring that the team could understand the family structure and dynamics and clearly. It was a significant tool to support the allocated worker’s ability to analyse and assess the family and make decisions in relation to where the child should live and whether Kinship arrangements would be appropriate.

Announced and unannounced home visits should be applied and recorded more consistently. In addition, improvements in recording how and when third party verification of information is sought will strengthen the assessment and build the capacity to revise judgements. (Milner and O’Byrne 2008; Holland 2011; Munro 2011).

4.5 Assessing Need (Links to Key Themes 2 &3) The process of assessing need along the continuum of universal to intensive intervention should be improved. The earlier use of chronologies and more consistency in the use of child wellbeing meetings (CWM) will bring benefits across all services. This will strengthen the analysis of information by ensuring this process keeps the child at the centre.

In some cases, when the decision was to close a case, a more transparent social work assessment would have been more easily understood by partner agencies. A child aged two was exposed to domestic violence, as perpetrated by his father towards his mother. The family was visited and there was no evidence to support a role for social work, at that time. However, it would have strengthened the social work assessment, at the point of closure and return to the named person, if the CWP had been used to invite the named person, GP, criminal justice service and mental health service to come together, meet with the parents and share all information held.

1 A genogram is a diagram summarising family relationships and in appearance is similar to a “family tree”.

168

There are challenges when the worker is assessing and managing the needs of large sibling groups of children. Additional training and thinking time within teams should be created to ensure this challenge is well managed. 4.6 Making Plans to manage risk and meet need (Links to Key Themes 2&3) All children reviewed within this self-evaluation had a child’s plan in place to determine action required across all agencies. Not all plans were completed within service timescales (6 weeks from initial contact) but this was not seen to be affecting the outcomes for these children. The creation of child’s plans for all children in receipt of social work services has been formally monitored since October 2016 by the senior management team as part of ongoing quality assurance activity. This audit activity occurs weekly with clear expectations set for all outstanding plans. In April 2017 all children subject to child protection registration, or who are looked after, have a child’s plan in place. In addition 96.7% of children in receipt of voluntary support have a plan in place. This puts the service in a very strong position in advance of the child’s plan being introduced nationally. Concerns were presented about a parent’s ability to anticipate risk and manage day to day environmental hazards for their one year old son. A child well-being meeting is convened and the initial social work assessment is presented to the meeting. A child’s plan was produced on this day identifying clear needs/risks and detailed actions to keep the child safe. The plan is updated 8 weeks later. In terms of the well-being pathway the case is allocated in accordance with guidance, the assessment is produced, the meeting held and the plan produced all within 2 ½ weeks. The child’s plan has been regularly updated since the case was opened to

social work. The plan is described as SMART with excellent and specific detail in relation to timescales, professional responsibilities and changes required.

In some teams there was a level of staff turnover during 2015/16 which led to the use of agency staff while recruitment was progressing. This has impacted upon the timing of achieving outcomes for the child. A change of worker has at times led to the planning being interrupted and on some occasions a return to the start of the assessment process. This is an area requiring improvement. Towards the latter months covered by this review this matter became less of a concern as staffing numbers increased and stabilised.

4.7 Planning, Reviewing and Implementing (Links to Key Themes 2&3) 95% of children whose name was on the child protection register had been reviewed within agreed timescales. There is therefore confidence that children subject to child protection registration are having their circumstances reviewed timeously, regularly and plans are being implemented.

169

71% of looked after children had been reviewed within timescale and for those children whose reviews were delayed there were processes in place to ensure planning was progressing in all cases. Overall 83% of children subject to formal review were held in timescale which compares favourably with the findings from the CI report 2016 which noted that 77% of reviews were held in timescale.

Practice is developing in using the child wellbeing pathway (CWP) as the tool to review children who are not the subject of any formal process. When used this is of benefit to the children concerned. Data from the social work electronic recording system indicates an increasing use of the pathway. During the period of the file read and evaluation activity January to March 31st 2017, 409 child wellbeing meetings were recorded. This a significant increase in comparison to data recorded for the same three month period in 2016 when 226 were recorded.

In total during the year from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017, 1,237 child wellbeing meetings arranged by or involving social work staff have been held.

There is a positive practice shift from the work led by the introduction of the resource panel, established in September 2015 (RP) and the intensive community support panel, established August 2016 (ICSP). Both of these processes apply a level of reflection and scrutiny leading to improved responses and better outcomes for children. In addition the work of the emergency support team (EST) has allowed for more creative responses to crisis situations within families:

From September 2015 to December 2016 the RP scrutinised the plans of 388 children who were considered to be in need of alternative care.

From August 2016 to December 2016 the ICSP scrutinised the plans of 94 children who were considered to need intensive support to prevent the escalation of risk/need.

EST have worked with 62 children between July and November 2016. Involvement has concluded with 57 children who no longer require intensive support. 81% have remained at, or returned to home or their primary placement. 7% have been admitted into care from home.

4.8 Permanency (Links to Key Themes 2&3) The parameters of the review extended before and after a period of time when the need to progress permanent plans for children had already been recognised as an area in need of improvement. Action has already been taken with the introduction of the permanence mentoring service (PMS) in 2015 and in 2016 with the commencement of collaboration with Permanence and Care Excellence.

The permanence mentoring service brings skills, knowledge and practice wisdom to the permanence improvement agenda. The service is grounded in practice and the workers offer support and guidance to staff within the service who have limited experience in permanence work. There is continued success and improvement in the

170

volume of adoption plans progressed by the worker within a tight time frame. The data held by the service supports such success.

4.9 Multi-agency practice (Links to Key Theme 4&5) There is good multi-agency collaborative practice and appropriate information sharing across all agencies. This is particularly evident through the use of the child wellbeing pathway (CWP) and case conferences. The CWP is frequently used to support multi-agency working and planning. In-depth analysis of the practice of other agencies out with area social work teams, was beyond the scope of this review and is considered in detail in other reports which are available in Fife, for example the Fife CPC’s multi-agency case file audit report.

4.10 Involving Children and Parents in decision-making and planning (Links

to Key Theme 1&2) Children and parents are meaningfully involved in decision-making. Reports and minutes of meetings reflect the views of the child and family members. These will be further improved by noting any dissent to the plan in the recording processes. In addition the impact upon the child should be described more clearly in all areas. Children are being seen on their own and there is effective relationship building and there is excellent practice in this regard. A young person, aged 15, was supported to engage with the service she believed was best placed to support her to express her views and support planning in her best interest. In this particular case her views were in conflict with the views of her parents. With the support of her guidance teacher, Shakti Women’s Aid and her social worker she was able to confidently express her views and participate in the decision-making and planning that surrounded her. There is clear evidence within reports and electronic records that the views of all family members are well represented. The initial challenges that were apparent when social work first engaged with the family are clear to see however as the plan progressed and the professional relationship emerged there is a clear sense that all concerned were listened to and their views fully considered. The outcomes for this young person have been positive, a view expressed by and shared by the family.

4.11 Impact and outcomes for children (Links to Key Theme 2)

The best practice presentations clearly demonstrated the impact and outcomes achieved. There is a growing sense that building capacity within the workforce has made the ability to focus on child-centred, relationship-based, social work practice an achievable aim. Children face additional challenges when displaced from their own community. The work of the Home to Fife Project has enabled a clear focus to be created around planning for children placed away from home and/or out with their geographical home area: in June 2015 there were 162 children placed in out of Fife residential care, the work of the Home to Fife project supporting staff to review and evaluate plans has resulted in this number reducing to 93 by December 2016.

171

4.12 Professional support and oversight (Links to Key Themes 2&6) In recognition of the importance of management oversight the service introduced the post of supervising senior practitioner to support the function of the team manager. This role has been embedded over the period 2015/16. This is a valuable development. The post is creating the capacity for team managers to deliver greater oversight of practice. There is developing practice around the widespread recording of management decisions in electronic records. Clearer guidance should be provided in order to embed the principles of management oversight and how this is consistently applied and recorded.

Supervision is the corner stone of social work practice (Munro 2011, Morrison 2000; Hair 2013). The review included the use of supervision across the service, how it was delivered, how it was experienced by staff and the quality of the supervision they received. To this end an electronic survey was used in March 2017 to capture the views of team managers, senior practitioners, social workers and social work assistants. The positive results have been noted earlier in this report.

A practice focused team meeting was observed as part of a best practice example. This modelled how one team makes critical decisions. The learning noted in this presentation will be made available across the service with a recommendation for this process to be replicated across all teams. Numerous groups in Fife offer support to staff in relation to enhancing practice and offering space for professional reflection with peers:

The “newly qualified and new to Fife” Group was established in 2014.

This group is mandatory for all newly qualified staff and is open to all staff who are ‘new to Fife’. The sessions are held monthly and involve direct teaching time focused on the detail held within the children and families resource pack. Time is also dedicated to analysing specific practice scenarios to support peer learning and reflection. Ongoing evaluation is underway in terms of profiling the success of this forum with other local authorities, SSSC newsletter and other agencies. Fife is supporting a small group of newly qualified staff to participate in a longitudinal study undertaken by the Glasgow Caledonian University on behalf of the SSSC.

A newly qualified social workers and probationary teachers session was established in 2016. This group supports staff to consider approaches to joint working and professional learning. The sessions, to date, have considered attachment issues and managing risk.

The supervising senior practitioner group was established in 2015

Fife’s supervising senior practitioners are pivotal in supporting staff to work effectively. The group meets quarterly with a focus on quality supervision and current research and practice.

172

The senior practitioner group was established in 2015. Senior practitioners engage in conversations to consider their role and responsibilities in managing complex cases and mentoring new staff to Fife. The group shares practice across teams which is then shared amongst the wider workforce.

The social work assistant group – was established in 2016. To date

this group has met to focus on the role of a social work assistant and managing contact plans. Going forward the service will embed a more consistent use of the role of social work assistant across the service.

The newly developed training events in the social work service are

having an impact on practice and culture. These are structured as a response to learning from inspection reports, internal auditing and self-evaluation. For example: CPO training, SCRA protocol and parenting capacity assessment training.

4.13 Recording system (Links to Key theme 3) Where good quality recording is in place, clarity exists on how practice relates to the plan. The ability to focus on outcomes for the child, so that they remain at the centre, is also more readily available. However, at times profile notes are difficult to assimilate, resulting in difficulties created by excessive and unrequired details. There is a risk that such a volume of unnecessary information clouds thinking, analysis and the judgement of the worker. The service would benefit from additional support around recording on the electronic system supported by a fully developed and structured recording template. The review team found that during the review period all children, whose names were on the child protection register, were visited at least weekly. In addition 93% of children who were looked after were visited within statutory timescale and within this 69% were visited at least every 4 weeks. 78% (n35) of children who were receiving voluntary support were being visited at a minimum of every 4 weeks. The team noted that there was an identifiable improvement in visiting standards from the latter half of 2015 as capacity within the teams grew. Those not visited to timescale were subject to additional scrutiny by the team to seek reassurance that the children are not being disadvantaged. In 2016 the service introduced a new standard which requires that all children, open to the service, are seen at least every 4 weeks on their own as compared to the legal requirement of 12 weeks. There is a clear improving trend in this area with the majority of workers achieving this for the children they support. It is also apparent from the recording that such a level of contact is adding value to the understanding of the child's views and current experience.

Home visits are generally being recorded within standard timescales (79%): five working days for all records, and within 24 hours for children on the child protection register. However, while the process has improved, there is a need to focus on the

173

quality of the recording. Additional guidance and support in this area will lead to greater improvement and consistency.

5. Best Practice Presentation The best practice presentations added considerable value to the self-evaluation exercise by:

providing a strong and transparent connection between the exercise, managers and practitioners;

allowing for self-evaluation in real time and enabling the culture around practice, assessment, staff support and development within teams to be show cased; and

allowing a window into practice that was invaluable to the team and the external members of the review exercise.

Each team was invited to structure and deliver their presentation according to their own requirements. The presentations were delivered by staff all of whom spoke positively of the support structures and practice within Fife. Practitioners identified relevant research and theoretical frameworks underpinning their practice. Examples of this included Howe 2005, Helm 2010, Munro 2011 and Thomson 2010. Appropriate use and good understanding of legislation was also apparent.

One case presentation considered the situation of a 15 year old girl who had been accommodated in a residential resource, with a secure condition attached to her legal order. Following a period of nine months in secure accommodation the plan to support the young person home to Fife was agreed, given the evident progress seen within the mobility plan. A new resource was therefore required to support the move. The next steps for this young person were challenging for her. She experienced periods of high anxiety, which were compounded by a lack of engagement from her parents. The allocated worker had built a positive relationship with the young person which was sustaining her through this period of change. The child’s plan focussed upon how the father could be assisted to begin to build his relationship with his daughter. In addition, the plan drafted in additional support from specialist services so intensive support could be offered and a crisis intervention approach adopted. Initially the young person transitioned to a residential house nearer her family home and then a step change leading to a return home. The challenges were clearly described in the presentation. It was also clear that the social worker made good use of her ‘self’ and her level of availability to the young person, offering a level of reassurance and continuity that ultimately supported the young person to successfully return home to her father’s care. Outcomes were achieved for this young person who continues to live at home and enjoys a positive relationship with her father. She is shortly commencing a college course which will provide her with the opportunity to achieve her ambition of a career in drama.

174

A practice focused team meeting was used by one team to model how critical decisions were made in respect of the care of a baby whose older siblings are placed permanently out with the care of the birth parents due to parental substance misuse. A number of significant changes had occurred for the parents over the intervening four year period, in particular the parents had evidenced stability for several years. While the child was accommodated in foster care at birth, the parenting capacity of the parents continued to be assessed, with evidence to support positive changes within their lives. All factors, risk and protective, were considered, so as to determine if the child could be returned home. The wellbeing indicators formed the basis of the group discussion, with team members openly questioning and challenging all the evidence that was presented. The team manager mapped out the issues on flip chart paper which covered the walls giving a visual aspect to the process of learning. This approach impressed the review team as it clearly demonstrated consideration of the safety of the child within a framework that was mindful of the rights of the child and parents. There was evidence presented that illustrated a multi-agency approach to managing the child’s plan post return home with a contingency plan also available.

An experienced social worker led the best practice presentation for a nine

year old boy. His father had died recently and his mother was continuing to depend upon alcohol which was affecting her capacity to safely parent her son. The child wellbeing pathway (CWP) was used to support the process of assessing and responding to risk/need and established a team around the child. Partners in health and social care, education and the criminal justice service supported the plan which led to the child being placed within his extended family. Previously the child’s time at school had been interrupted; he was taking on the ‘parenting’ role for his mother; his self-esteem was low and his sense of who was keeping him safe was disrupted. Through securing kinship care and connecting the services to the child he has made progress in all areas. The outcomes achieved for this child are clear to see and he reports that he feels safe and happier.

Themes that emerged from presentations that reflect best practice included:

the presence of robust assessment of need that informed the multi-agency plan;

evidence that relationship-based practice was seen as important and added value to the assessment. The child was at the centre, the self-evaluation team received a clear sense of the child and their needs;

application of the legal framework which supported action and monitored progress and change for the child;

use of theory to underpin the social work assessment and make sense of the child’s lived experience;

early use of universal and additional service to provide support; acknowledgement of the barriers to decision making that supports progress

for the child; the views of the child and their family were visible;

175

young people were supported to take responsibility for their actions, where appropriate, and services were offered to best support the young person in these instances;

use of group and one to one supervision to strengthen assessment of need and the decision making process; and

supervision provided the platform from which workers could explore any ethical dilemmas that existed within the practice and connect them with additional learning opportunities.

6. Feedback to managers An important aspect of the self-evaluation exercise was to provide team managers with individual feedback from the areas of strength and areas for improvement that were identified. Managers valued the feedback received and commented that the findings were fair and proportionate in terms of strengths and areas for development. This activity was considered to be important in relation to promoting ownership by front line leaders in relation to evaluating their team’s practice and accepting comments for development. All managers were keen to be involved in planning the action to be undertaken from the learning identified in this work. Managers understood that the findings of this work were largely positive and that many areas for development were those already identified as national issues, by managers themselves, or through Fife’s last Children’s Services Inspection (2016). The range of comments received from team managers included:

The importance of good management oversight was noted, ensuring actions

were indeed followed up.

I understand the importance of supervision and the need to ensure all social

workers are aware of their role and purpose in each case.

My team use the CWP effectively and this is reflected in the evaluation.

Ensuring no errors in recording, was an area which had been worked on.

Proportionate responses to levels of risk with good use of legislation, kinship

care where appropriate and working agreements were noted to be in place.

I have confidence that there is good levels of scrutiny applied in cases.

Announced and unannounced visits and the balance between these was

highlighted as an area for consideration, there should be a balance of these in

CP cases.

An overall positive and improving trend was noted by the team over the two

year period evaluated.

There has been an element of drift in some permanence cases but that the

majority had now progressed.

Formal kinship assessments are an area that requires to be promoted overall

within the team.

I need to ensure that the review cycle of the CWP is used appropriately and

effectively.

176

Through my own QA analysis I recognised much of the feedback points

raised.

The use of analysis within my team’s assessment of need could be clearer.

Chronologies do need to be updated.

Child’s plans were on occasion not being signed by children and their families.

Short term recording was undertaken in a particular way to ensure that the

risk assessment is captured.

7. Statement by critical friend and care inspector Joint Statement The critical friend and care inspector engaged with this self-evaluation exercise through a number of activities:

Participation in the regular oversight group meetings;

Meeting senior managers to review progress;

Meeting the review team to examine progress and discuss methods and findings;

Discussing findings and emerging themes with the review team, including findings on how well the social work service had assessed and responded to risks and needs for the children included in the audit sample;

Directly introducing Care Inspectorate experience into the file reading process, including cross reading a small number of files analysed by the review team;

Attending best practice presentations; and

Contributing to discussions on the final report. Fife Council has devoted a considerable amount of staff time and resource to completion of this review to timescale. Senior managers and the child protection committee have taken a close interest and played a prominent leadership role in designing the exercise, allocating resources and driving it through to completion. It is therefore an exercise that has been afforded high priority and has led the critical friend and care inspector to offer reassurance that social work practice within Fife was leading to good outcomes for children and reassurance that no immediate risks requiring action were emerging. The review team, led by a senior manager, have approached their task with close attention to detail. They have conducted individual file reviews in detail and with rigour, applying best practice and appropriate tools. They have considered evidence both for individual cases and to look for common themes and issues between cases. In doing so they have made good use of their collective and individual experience. They have listened carefully and have had due regard to advice and comments. The wider implications of evidence for service improvement has been considered. At all times they gave high priority to identifying any unmet need or risk. Where service standards have not been met they have investigated the reasons for this.

177

Children and families social work teams had given great thought to the ‘best practice’ presentations. They had prepared support materials and team managers played a key role in supporting staff. The sense of team work and commitment to professional responsibilities at these meetings was impressive. In summary, therefore, this is a task undertaken as a high priority and conducted with rigour. A high level of confidence can therefore be given to the findings and recommendations resulting from this exercise. 8. Summary of learning This report has identified significant strengths within child and family social work practice across Fife and also highlighted areas for further development. Key recommendations identified within this report are:

The quality of chronologies needs to be further improved with clarity around what to detail as a significant event. Specifically when there is a large sibling group, chronologies should be individualised in order to retain sight of each child’s needs and circumstances (Key Theme 1, Key Theme 3);

The impact of intervention and planning on the child needs to be more

transparent within reports and planning, with the ‘so what ?’ question being addressed (Key Theme 1, Key Theme 3);

Whilst improvement was noted in the quality of child’s plans there is a need for further improvement in relation to detailing outcomes, being more specific in relation to timescales and ensuring the whole plan is child centred (Key Theme 3);

Genograms should be adopted as a standard part of procedure, where

appropriate (Key Theme 3);

The wider family should be assessed as potential support at an early stage of social work involvement and not only at a time of crisis (Key Theme 3, Key Theme 5);

Announced and unannounced home visits should be applied and recorded

more consistently (Key Theme 3);

Electronic recording within SWIFT needs to be further standardised and supported by a fully developed and structured recording template. This will allow for greater consistency in recording (Key Theme 3);

The detail of how and when third party verification of information is sought needs to be more consistently recorded and detailed within assessment reports (Key Theme 3);

178

Challenges in assessing and managing the needs of large sibling groups of children needs to be further explored, with additional support offered through training and thinking time within teams (Key Theme 3, Key Theme 6);

Processes around case closure and information sharing with named persons

needs to be standardised/formalised (Key Theme 2, Key Theme 4);

Clearer guidance should be provided in order to embed the principles of management oversight and how this is consistently applied and recorded (Key Theme 6); and

Focussed team meetings to analyse complex cases is considered a valuable

learning tool, assisting in thoughtful and reflective decision making, and there is a recommendation for this process to be replicated across all teams (Key Theme 1, Key Theme 2, Key Theme 6).

These areas are generally reflected within existing multi agency and single service improvement plans. A distinct development plan will be drawn up as a result of this exercise, cross referenced to existing planning, to assist in the future development of the service. 9. Conclusion All of the children who formed the review sample are having their needs addressed with appropriate plans and actions in place. Given the background to the exercise explained in the introduction, assurance can be taken that the Authority’s policies are being implemented effectively. There are adequate and improving resources in place to safeguard efficient service delivery. Policies and procedures have been updated in line with both new legislation and best practice thinking and are being applied across the service. The needs of children known to social work are being addressed and risks minimised. In reflecting on the work undertaken involving over 135 children there is clear evidence of an improving practice trend which can be linked to: investment in staff leading to more capacity to improve delivery of service; a strengthened vision of effective leadership and embedded processes of self-evaluation activity which promotes learning. Assurance can therefore be taken from this work in relation to Child and Family social work practice in Fife, but it is explicit that continued vigilance by social work, partner agencies and the community will continue to be essential to protect all children and young people. This exercise in self-evaluation was complementary to other evaluation activities across Fife and the learning has been specifically linked to the 6 key themes identified through work undertaken by the CPC, in relation to SCRs in Fife as detailed below.

179

Appendix 1 The 6 key themes underpinning successful outcomes: 1. Children at the centre - There is good evidence that social work practitioners

are ensuring that the needs and rights of children are at the centre of their work and the best practice examples highlights this well. There is work to be undertaken in sharing best practice examples across the whole of the social work community in Fife.

2. Relationships between professionals & children and parents is generally seen to be strong within the file reading and again best practice examples will be shared.

3. Quality of assessment and planning and the need to consider cumulative concerns – there is evidence within files of a need to improve the quality of chronologies and further embed the tools within the Scottish Government’s risk assessment framework such as the resilience matrix and genograms.

4. Information exchange/ Communication- information sharing and multi-

agency working is generally positive and professionals work together for the best interests of the family and child.

5. Early intervention and its interface with statutory services – the CWP is embedded within social work practice and is a positive development in ensuring early and more effective intervention for children within a GIRFEC context and using the resources and expertise of both universal and intensive services. This needs to continue to be developed. Further conversations are required across the partnership in relation to the continuum of involvement and a shared understanding of ‘thresholds’.

6. Professional support/oversight – The introduction of the supervisory senior role along with a significant reduction in case load size is allowing for supervisory capacity to be enhanced. This needs to be married with a clearer process around recording management decisions and oversight activity.

180

Bibliography Christie, C. (2011) Report on the future delivery of public services by the commission. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/27154527/0 Hair, H.J. (2013) The Purpose and Duration of Supervision, and the Training and Discipline of Supervisors: What Social Workers say they Need To Provide Effective Services. British Journal of Social Work 43 pp1562 – 1588. Helm, D. (2010) Making sense of Child and Family Assessment, London: Jessica Kingsley. Helm, D. (2011) Judgements or Assumptions? The Role of Analysis in Assessing Children and Young People’s Needs. British Journal of Social Work, 42, pp. 894 – 911. Holland, S. (2011) Child and Family Assessment in Social work Practice. London: Sage Publications. Howe, D. (2005) Child Abuse and Neglect. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillian Mannion, G. (2012) Children and Young People’s Participation in Scotland: Frameworks, Standards and Principles for Practice, Edinburgh: Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. Milner, J. and O’Byrne, P. (2009) Assessment in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro review of child protection: final report a child centred system. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/munro-review-of-child-protection-final-report-a-child-centred-system O’Leary et al. (2012) The boundaries of the social work relationship revisited: towards a connected, inclusive and dynamic conceptualisation. British Journal of Social Work, 43, pp.135-153.) Ruch, G. (2012) Where have all the feelings gone? Developing reflective and relationship-based management in child-care social work. British Journal of Social Work, 42, pp.1313-1332.). Ruch, G. (2013) “Helping Children is a Human Process: Researching the Challenges Social Workers Face in Communicating with Children” British Journal of Social Work 1-18. Scottish Government (2012) National Risk Framework to Support the Assessment of Children and Young People. Scottish Government. Available: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0040/00408604.pdf Stanley et al (2011) “ A Stop-Start Response: Social Services’ Interventions with Children and families Notified following Domestic Violence Incidents” British Journal of Social Work, 41, pp296-313.

181

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/27154527/0

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/munro-review-of-child-protection-final-report-a-child-centred-system

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/munro-review-of-child-protection-final-report-a-child-centred-system


Fife Child Protection Committee

Children in Fife

Annual Report 2016/17

182

I have been the Independent Chair of the Fife Child Protection Committee (CPC) since April 2015, and this report reflects some of the achievements made by the Committee in that that time. Child Protection is a complex and at times challenging area of business however the strong commitment of the Chief Officers Public Safety Group, the CPC, supporting working groups and all involved in protecting children and young people across the partnership is obvious and augurs well for the future. The Care Inspectorate carried out a Children’s Services Inspection in 2015 and their report published in 2016 is an indication of the efforts of all involved in promoting, supporting and safeguarding Fife’s children. This has been a particularly challenging time for the CPC who have been intent on delivering a significant change programme whilst heavily involved in the inspection combined with a high degree of internal and external attention following a number of significant cases. Continuous improvement remains the major focus of the work of the CPC. We have reviewed and updated our multi-agency Child Protection guidance and continued to develop supporting policies and procedures so that staff are familiar with best practice in child protection work. The learning from Significant Case Reviews and other Child Protection focused work in the partnership has led us to identify six key themes for improvement and has led to the creation of an ambitious Improvement Plan for 2017 to 2020 which will provide a focus for all of our activities. This Fife CPC Annual Report is the first of its type and will hopefully set the scene for similar reports in years to follow. It provides a welcome opportunity for the Fife Child Protection Committee (CPC) to evidence achievements and plan for the year ahead. Importantly it coincides with the launch of the CPC Improvement Plan 2017–20.

CPC Independent Chair

Fife’s Child Protection Committee brings together all the organisations involved in protecting children in the area. The Committee’s purpose is to provide individual and collective leadership and direction for the management of child protection services within Fife, contributing as appropriate to the provision of effective child protection across Scotland. Representation is from Fife’s partner agencies with direct responsibilities for matters of child protection across Fife. The Committee has direct links to the Children in Fife Group and reports to the Chief Officers Public Safety Group who in turn report to the Safer Communities Committee.

OUR VISION is for all children in Fife to be safe and protected from harm.

In Fife we ensure that the work of partners can make every child and young person matter through the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) framework. Child Protection in Fife is rooted in GIRFEC which means that every child in Fife has the right to be safe, have their needs met and their rights respected.

Foreword

Introduction

How we work together

183

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) provides a comprehensive statement of the rights of children. The Convention has 54 articles that cover all aspects of a child’s life. It explains how public services must work together to ensure that the rights of all children are recognised and given effect. UNCRC Articles 19 and 33 to 36 are particularly relevant to Child Protection:

GIRFEC is Scotland’s approach to supporting children and young people. It is designed to ensure that all practitioners working with and for children and young people have the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child at the heart of the work they do. GIRFEC recognises the importance of taking a rounded view of wellbeing, with the aim of ensuring that all children and young people are: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included.

As a Child Protection Committee, safety is our prime concern, however often other signs of need or risk in respect of the other wellbeing indicators are key to identifying risk of harm. It is unusual for a child or young person to be at risk of harm and not have other wellbeing needs.

Children’s Rights

Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC)

Article 19: “The right to be protected from

being hurt or badly treated”

Article 33 – 36: “The right to be protected from

dangerous drugs, sexual abuse,

abduction and other forms of exploitation”

184

Providing support at an early stage can help children and families. At the heart of the GIRFEC approach is an emphasis on early, proactive intervention in order to create a supportive environment and identify any additional support that may be required as early as possible. Early intervention and support can prevent a problem from escalating into a crisis and ultimately, ensure positive outcomes for children. Getting It Right In Fife (GIRIF) is the basis for implementing GIRFEC in Fife. It provides an overarching framework which enables Fife’s Children’s Services to provide more effective and outcome-based services to children and young people in Fife. GIRIF recognises and reflects the varying needs of children and young people, and the roles played by a diverse range of universal, additional and intensive services in supporting them. The framework provides a basis for the Fife’s Children’s Services partnership to develop both the capacity and quality of services across the continuum of support - Universal, Additional, and Intensive. It also outlines and describes how these services can work together more effectively to provide a more integrated service for children, young people and families, ensuring that:

• Their needs are identified, based on relevant information relating to all aspects of the wellbeing of the child or young person

• That appropriate support is identified, including access to other services if

needed

• A key person is available to coordinate support, as required (the Named Person for the child/young person, and the Lead Professional for the service concerned)

Universal services – for all children and young people Additional support – for key disadvantaged groups, or those who would benefit from focused working (e.g. those living in socially disadvantaged communities) Intensive support – for the vulnerable, those with significant needs, and those at risk

Getting it Right in Fife (GIRIF)

185

The Care Inspectorate undertook a Children’s Services Inspection during 2015 with the report being published in March 2016. The report identified significant improvement since the previous inspection in 2012 and evaluated Fife partnership services against 9 quality indicators:

How well are the lives of children and young people improving?

Improving the wellbeing of children and young people Good

Impact on children and young people Good

Impact on families Very Good

How well are partners working together to improve the lives of children, young people and families?

Providing help and support at an early stage Good

Assessing and responding to risks and needs Good

Planning for individual children Adequate

Planning and improving services Good

Participation of children, young people, families and other stakeholders

Very Good

How good is the leadership and direction of services for children and young people?

Leadership of improvement and change Very Good

During the inspection, the Care Inspectorate identified particular strengths which were making a positive difference for children and young people in the Fife community planning partnership area. These were:

Children’s Services Inspection

The family nurture approach which was embedded across the area and was having a positive impact on families

Participation and engagement of wide groups of children, young people and families which

was making a difference to how services were being delivered

The breadth of approaches that were in place to address disadvantage and

tackle the impact of poverty

Developing approaches to self-evaluation leading to demonstrable improvement in

practice

186

The Inspection report was analysed alongside Fife’s own self-evaluation of Children’s Services and an update of outcomes within the Fife Children’s Services Plan (2014-2017). This work led to an inspection specific action plan with a small number of key priorities which provides a focussed approach to address the main areas for improvement. The 9 key priority areas are as follows:

Co-ordinated Family Support Multi-Agency Child’s Planning Process Returning Looked After Children to Fife Permanency Planning Child Protection Committee Plan Young Person’s Participation Strategy

CAMHS Waiting Times Chronologies / Multi-Agency

Chronologies Strategic Commissioning of Children’s

Services

The action plan is closely monitored by the Children in Fife partnership group. Multi-agency audits are undertaken as one of many strands of self-evaluation activity within children’s services and support learning about what works well and where improvements may need to be made. A focus on a particular theme measured against specific quality indicators is identified for each multi-agency audit. Care Inspectorate Quality Indicators (QI: 2.1; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 9.21) were considered in the audit. The theme is generated from activity relating to Improvement Plans, Children’s Services 6 monthly performance reports, Development Days, CPC Conference and findings from self-evaluation activities. The overarching theme for the October audit was Children affected by ‘Domestic Abuse’. During the file read auditors focussed on information sharing, chronologies and planning, and the following key themes:

Child at the Centre Relationships Quality of assessment and planning and the need to consider cumulative concerns Information exchange / communication Early intervention and its interface with statutory services Professional support / oversight

For this audit 23 cases were selected using agreed criteria. There has been an overall improvement from the last audit in 2014, however, it is clear that some areas require further improvement. It should be noted that, whilst the audit covers the same indicators, there have been significant changes to processes for some of these (e.g. 5.2 Chronologies and 5.3 Quality of Child’s Plan) and as such the criteria for assessing against these indicators is different from the 2014 audit and therefore comparative data has been treated with caution.

1 The Care Inspectorate Quality Indicator Framework can be accessed at: http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/2600/Care%20Inspectorate%20Joint%20Inspect%20Quality%20Indicators%20Children%20&%20Young%20People.pdf

CPC Multi-Agency File Audit October 2016

187

http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/2600/Care%20Inspectorate%20Joint%20Inspect%20Quality%20Indicators%20Children%20&%20Young%20People.pdf

http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/2600/Care%20Inspectorate%20Joint%20Inspect%20Quality%20Indicators%20Children%20&%20Young%20People.pdf

There is an improving trend in the overall scoring of 9 key questions. Practitioners consistently place the child at the centre, with good practice focusing on

early recognition of concerns and assistance being sought as appropriate from other agencies.

Positive collaborative working with Women’s Aid and CEDAR ensuring co-ordinated support.

Health services recognise early risks to unborn babies and take appropriate, timeous action.

Consistent information sharing, regular multi-agency discussions and involvement of carers and wider family in planning.

Good quality, flexible plans which are generally reviewed at intervals appropriate to child’s needs.

Positive, multi-agency collaborative working to improve outcomes for the child. Practitioners recognise signs that children may be at immediate risk of harm and

respond without delay. Police notifications to social work result in robust information sharing and appropriate

and timely action being taken.

The standard of chronologies remains an area for improvement. New single and multi-agency guidance should improve this but needs to be addressed swiftly.

Use of agreed risk assessment tools, particularly in Education and Health services should be re-enforced.

Evidence suggests that further improvements are required by single agencies in the development of agreed outcome indicators for the child.

Plans are generally good, but some need to be more specific to support evidencing change and improvement.

Some improvement required to ensure recordings are sufficiently detailed to evidence how judgement and decision making was undertaken.

More effort should be made in obtaining child’s views as appropriate, and make use of the potential provided by Education Services daily contact with the school aged child.

The CPC has considered this report and areas for improvement are being addressed either through the new CPC Improvement Plan 2017-20 or by single agencies. These improvement activities will be monitored by the CPC to ensure they are progressed.

Key Strengths Identified Overall

Key Areas for Improvement Overall

188

Fife Child Protection Committee (CPC) has overall responsibility for the planning, development, provision and delivery of all inter-agency child protection training across Fife. It is also responsible for monitoring, reviewing, evaluating and quality assuring this training to ensure it is relevant and effective. The Inter Agency Child Protection Training Programme for 2015 – 2016 was developed in line with the Scottish Government’s Common Core of Skills, Knowledge & Understanding and Values for the “Children’s Workforce” in Scotland http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0039/00395179.pdf and the National Framework for Child Protection learning & development in Scotland http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0040/00409124.pdf which outline the competencies/knowledge/skills required in three workforce categories:

General Contact Workforce Specific Contact Workforce Intensive Contact Workforce

Training is provided for practitioners, managers, non-statutory agencies and for CPC members themselves. Between 1st April 2015 and 31st March 2016, 50 training events were scheduled with 48 delivered, consisting of 10 courses. The total % update attendance of multi-agency training courses throughout 2015 – 2016 was 82% and meets the local target for attendance of 80%. Exit evaluation questionnaires are completed on the day and these are input in the CLMS system which has the functionality to produce a number of management reports to allow for monitoring and course review. A review of Child Protection training currently on offer was undertaken in 2015 and 2016 and minor changes were made to ensure training remained up-to-date. The existing training programme continues to evaluate very positively with an average satisfaction rate of:

With the development of a local Trainers Forum as well as the involvement with the National Child Protection Learning and Development Group, training will have a platform for wider professional feedback. Non-attendance, particularly in respect of participants from the private and voluntary sector, remains an area of focus.

CPC Multi-Agency Training

89%

189



The CPC Improvement Plan 2014-16 was the subject of regular monitoring by CPC to ensure agreed activity was progressing. The Plan contained five priority areas where key improvement activity was identified as being required:

Priority 1 Our ability to self-reflect in support of continuous improvement

Priority 2 Improvement to the wellbeing of children through early and proportionate intervention

Priority 3 The long term wellbeing of children within key vulnerable groups

Priority 4 Ensure staff of single services and at inter-agency level understand child sexual abuse and exploitation and know how they should response

Priority 5 Grow the competence and capability of all staff with the child protection community partnership

The CPC received a final monitoring report in February 2017 where it was noted that the majority of activity was completed. For example under Priority 1 key activity focused on the development of a self-evaluation framework to support the quality of inter-agency working across children’s services in respect of areas such as Getting It Right, as well as child protection. This framework has been in place for some time and is working very well to the extent that it is now considered ‘business as usual’ with refinement ongoing as required to ensure that activity and reporting are both current and relevant. In terms of Priority 4 the CPC set up a Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) Working Group. This Working Group has supported the development of a CSE Strategy and published practitioner guidance, both of which fully reflect national activity. In addition 28 members of staff from across the partnership were trained in using the highly regarded Barnardo’s CSE training materials. This has resulted in significant activity, both single and multi-agency, to ensure that awareness raising sessions and more in depth training is widely available. For example in 2016 social work trained over 200 practitioners with plans to repeat this in 2017, almost all Police Officers up to Inspector level have been trained throughout 2016 with further sessions for Probationer Officers and Inspectors in place from April 2017. NHS Fife have implemented a training strategy which covers all relevant health staff who may have contact with children who may be at risk of CSE. The NHS Fife CSE Training Strategy 2017-2020 is now in place and details the multi-faceted training approach for CSE training for NHS Fife staff over the forthcoming three year period.

CPC Improvement Plan 2014-16

190

The Fife CPC improvement Plan 2017– 2020 was launched on 1st April 2017. It is linked to the Fife Children’s Services Plan 2017–20 and contributes to the overall vision and commitment to promoting, supporting and safeguarding the wellbeing of all children and young people in Fife. The improvement plan has been structured around the 6 key themes that are a priority for Fife CPC. The objectives within the plan are supported with a range of actions each of which have evaluation criteria which will help us understand when we have succeeded. The CPC have acknowledged that satisfying actions alone does not signify improvement. Most important to any change regime is the embedding of best practice in culture and practice. We acknowledge that some changes take longer to embed than others and that our frontline staff are extremely busy and operating in challenging environments. Through our process of self-evaluation we hope to evidence sustained and continuous improvement. The Improvement Plan can be accessed at: Child Protection Improvement Plan 2017-2020

The needs of children are at the centre of all practice

Ensuring that all relationships with children, parents/carers are effective, constructive and are central to improving wellbeing and minimising risk

of harm

All assessments and plans are accurate and effective in achieving outcomes in meeting needs and

minimising risk of harm and all available resources, techniques and tools are used to best effect

Relevant information is shared appropriately, clear lines of responsibility for action are understood

across partners and communication is effective in minimising potential risks

Early and effective intervention is achieved where possible, minimising the risk of harm to Children

and Young People

A culture of effective management support and/or supervision which embodies the values and

principles of Fife Child Protection Committee is embedded

CPC Improvement Plan 2017-20

191

http://www.fifechildprotection.org.uk/minisites/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&pageid=6571E87B-DEF0-24F0-ED4817EBB4329C3A&siteID=AA73CD9C-E7FE-C7EA-06436BFC786E1C8E

http://www.fifechildprotection.org.uk/minisites/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&pageid=6571E87B-DEF0-24F0-ED4817EBB4329C3A&siteID=AA73CD9C-E7FE-C7EA-06436BFC786E1C8E

Due to current reporting structures the reported data in this report is for the reporting year 2015-16. We have added the reported data from April to September 2016 to show how trends are continuing. It is important that we present some ‘hard’ statistical data to evidence the identified trends in the area of Child Protection in Fife. Using this ‘hard’ data and comparing it to the findings of other forms of assessment, leads to a better and more evidenced analysis of improvement. Whilst statistical data provides a degree of understanding of trends it can only become meaningful when some form of analysis is carried out. The analysis can suggest that a particular upwards or downwards trend is a positive or negative and provide a degree of reassurance that the more qualitative analysis such as self-evaluation exercises are credible.

Children deemed to be at significant risk are placed on the Child Protection Register. During the 12 month period from April 2015 to March 2016 the number of children on the CPR reduced by 29% and a further 12% to September 2016.

These decreasing figures are due to a number of factors: growing multi agency understanding of the critical nature of the Child Protection Register; an increase in the number of social workers within area teams enabling earlier intervention with families in crisis; the Child Wellbeing Pathway is more embedded across the Partnership and the use of Child Wellbeing meetings is a means of ensuring effective multi-agency planning and practice; the benefits of referring, where appropriate, to the Reporter when there were ongoing concerns and considering the use of compulsory measures; the impact of early years collaborative work within the wider Children’s Services.

Percentage Age Groups of children on the Child Protection Register

0-4 year olds have continued to be the highest number as an age group identified on the Child Protection Register

Key Statistics

Child Protection Registrations

192

Number of children residing in

temporary accommodation other than bed and breakfast

At the end of the 2015/16 reporting year there were 307 children within 149 households with pregnant woman or dependent children. By September 2016 this had increased to 354, a 15% increase since March 2016.

Number of children residing in bed and breakfast accommodation

At the end of the reporting year there were 8 children within 6 households, a 100% increase since March 2015 with a peak of 10 during September 2015.

During the 12 month period from April 2015 to March 2016 there were 834 Interagency Referral Discussions (IRD), an increase of 6% over the previous year. This is the actual number of discussions and not the total number of children subject to an IRD. During the 6 month period from April 2016 to September 2016 389 IRDs took place. Self-Evaluation work continues to be undertaken in order to support ongoing improvements.

Children in Temporary Accommodation

The use of B&B for Homeless clients stopped with effect from 31/03/16.

Families are now initially accommodated in family rooms in

hostels and then moved to temporary flatted accommodation.

Interagency Referral Discussions

193

Benchmarking information is available from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA). Number of children receiving a Child Protection Order (per 10,000 of the population of under 16s)

There is little doubt that the current economic climate is and will continue to have a significant impact on protecting Children in Fife. The issue of decreasing resources available to services is compounded with the daily financial pressures on the children and families that we work with and the inequality that exists in our society as a whole. On Thursday 2nd March 2017 the Scottish Government published the findings from the systems review of the Scottish Governments Child Protection Improvement Programme. Of note the review recommends the establishment of a National Child Protection Leadership Group to further support, strengthen and improve, from a national perspective, activity on child protection across Scotland. The full findings can be accessed at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00514758.pdf Fife CPC will continue to work towards all children in Fife being safe and protected from harm through the implementation of the 2017 -2020 Improvement Plan. Child Protection has always been and remains everyone’s responsibility. If you are worried about a child or young person speak to someone as soon as possible and tell them about your concerns. If you consider a child or young person to be in IMMEDIATE danger then call Police Scotland on 999. For non-emergency calls you can call Police Scotland on 101 or the Social Work Contact Centre on 03451 551503

In 2014/15 Fife exceeded the national average of children receiving a CPO (per 10,000) by 12.5. However due to a significant fall of 55.6% by 2015/16, Fife were only 2.7 above the national average.

Benchmarking

Challenges for the Future

194


Fife Child Protection Committee Improvement Plan

2017 – 2020

195

PREFACE BY CHIEF OFFICERS The Fife Chief Officers Public Safety Group is pleased to endorse Fife Child Protection Committee’s Improvement Plan and priorities for 2017 - 2020 which reflects our direction to the CPC and our views based on the available various briefings and formal reports present to us. Fife was subject to a Joint Inspection of Children’s Services by the Care Inspectorate in August 2015. The findings of this inspection published in 2016 were very positive, demonstrating our continued commitment, enthusiasm and dedication in protecting children and improving outcomes for them. A copy of the full report can be downloaded by visiting: http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/3123/Fife%20childrens%20services%20joint%20inspection%20report%20March%202016.pdf As Chief Officers we give a continued commitment and support to the work of the Committee, but acknowledge the particular challenges facing us all within the context of an ever changing child protection landscape, increasing demands and expectations of agencies alongside current financial restraint and uncertainties. The Chief Officer’s would also like to extend our thanks to staff and managers who deliver frontline services for children and their families, and commend their professionalism, sensitivity and diligence, in meeting the demands and responsibilities facing them within the restraints highlighted. Signatures of Chief Officers to be added Foreword on behalf of Fife Child Protection Committee As Independent Chair of Fife Child Protection Committee I am pleased on behalf of the Committee to present our Improvement Plan 2017–2020. The plan is based on desired outcomes from our 6 priority themes. We seek to achieve better preventative and protective measures for vulnerable children and better outcomes for those we aim to protect in the future. In support of its successful delivery we aim to continue to capture increasing levels of information on the outcomes being achieved for our most vulnerable children. The proposed measurement of these outcomes has been carefully considered and demonstrates the application of SMART criteria:

• Specific – target a specific area for improvement • Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress.

196

http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/3123/Fife%20childrens%20services%20joint%20inspection%20report%20March%202016.pdf

http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/3123/Fife%20childrens%20services%20joint%20inspection%20report%20March%202016.pdf

• Achievable – be able to specify who will do it. • Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, with available resources • Time-limited — specify when the result(s) can be achieved.

The Fife Child Protection Committee’s Improvement plan 2014 to 2016 has been positively evaluated and the results show that we have delivered to expectation. That plan had a focus on building appropriate structures in terms of self -evaluation and continuous improvement, early and effective intervention and the impact of Child Sexual Exploitation. This has provided the foundation and maturity that was necessary to enable the CPC to move forward to a position where we can be more ambitious and confident that with the appropriate evaluation structures in place we can identify and measure improvement.

Independent Chair Fife Child Protection Committee

197

Priority Outcome 1 – The needs of Children are at the centre of all practice. (QI 2.1, 2.2, 3.1) Objective Actions – We will: Lead Person/

Group Target for completion

How will we know that we have succeeded?

Suggested Measures/Indicators

1. The needs of the child are

prioritised, environmental and care issues identified and the impact on the child are appropriately assessed and addressed.

• Ensure agency/service

guidance and tools which support assessment & planning reference placing the child at the centre

Single Agency Lead

CPC Lead Social Work CPC Lead Education CPC Lead Health and Social Care CPC Lead Health CPC Police Scotland 3rd Sector CPC Lead (link to Children’s Services Forum)

Outcome -March 2020 Action -March 2018

• Annual multi-agency file

audit and single agency file audits evidence good or improving practice.

• Focus meetings

feedback • Analysis of responses in

2017 Staff Survey

• No (%) of case files

assessed as very good or better

• No of cases identifying good practice

• % positive feedback • % positive responses

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair

198

2. Risks associated with over

optimism are understood. Staff are confident to challenge presenting behaviour and have an understanding of unconscious bias and treat information where relevant with respectful uncertainty.

i) Ensure all agency/service training/awareness raising re child protection, both single & multi-agency includes awareness of the risks associated with over optimism. ii) Develop and

distribute a 7 Minute Briefing for all operational staff.

Single Agency

Leads CPC Lead Social Work CPC Lead Education CPC Lead Health and Social Care CPC Lead Health CPC Police Scotland 3rd Sector CPC Lead (link to Children’s Services Forum)

Outcome – March 2020 Action i) - March 2018 Action ii) – March 2018

• Annual multi-agency

file audit and single agency file audits evidence good or improving practice.

• The positive impact of training is demonstrated through/within follow up training evaluations

• The evaluation of the

impact of the 7 Minute Briefing demonstrates awareness/understanding embedded in practice.

• Focus meetings

feedback • Analysis of responses in

2017 Staff Survey




• No (%) feedback

demonstrating positive impact on practice

• No of returns • % 7 Minute briefing

action plans developed • % positive feedback • % positive responses

Multi-Agency Lead

Chair CPC Workforce Development Group

199

Priority Outcome 2 – Ensuring that all relationships with children, parents/carers are effective, constructive and are central to improving wellbeing and minimising risk of harm. (QI 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 )

Objective Actions We will: Lead Person/ Group

Target for completion



3. Contacts with children involve

direct engagement sufficient to result in a confidence that wellbeing needs are being met and risk of harm is minimised. This work will be informed by a children’s rights perspective.

This information is recorded on

appropriate systems/records.

i) Ensure single and multi-

agency guidance reflects the importance of accurate and comprehensive case recording.

ii) Ensure single and multi-agency guidance reflect the importance of direct engagement with children and their families.

Single Agency Leads


Outcome -March 2020 Action i)-March 2018 Action ii)-March 2018

• Annual multi-agency file

audit and single agency file audits evidence good or improving practice.

• Single agency guidance on recording is reinforced through management briefings and advice and positive impact is identified.

• Single agency guidance on the need for direct engagement is reinforced through management briefings and advice and positive impact is identified.

• A series of focus

meetings is developed and the impact action assessed.



• % staff received briefings

(sample)

• % of staff (sample) report high level awareness/confidence on reporting

• % staff report positive impact

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair

200

4. Positive relationships with children, parents and carers using a strength based approach are encouraged.

Where parental non

engagement is evident or disguised compliance is suspected staff assess the risks and act appropriately, seeking supervisory/management support when necessary.

When changes to the named person or lead professional are unavoidable ensure the transition is supportive and well managed.

i) Relevant staff are aware of the importance of a strength based approach through Single and Multi -Agency training

ii) Guidance is available on parental non-compliance and that risk assessment tools/training includes this.

iii) Relevant staff are

aware of the impact on the child and family of a change of named person, lead professional or worker and consider additional support where necessary.

Single Agency Lead


Outcome – March 2020 Action i) – March 2019 Action ii) – March 2018 Action iii) – March 2019




meetings is developed and the impact of each action assessed.

• Analysis of responses

in 2017 Staff Survey



• % of staff (survey) report

high or good level of

-awareness/confidence in risk assessment - Using a strengths

based approach - The impact of

Named Person/Lead Professional change on a child and family

-

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair Chair Workforce Development Working Group

201

Priority Outcome 3 – All assessments and plans are accurate and effective in achieving outcomes in meeting needs and minimising risk of harm and all available resources, techniques and tools are used to best effect. (QI 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)


Timescale Target for completion



5. Single agency assessments are

evidenced based and provide a clear analysis of areas of strengths, risk, need and concern, including accumulative concerns and the potential impact they may have on the child.

i) Ensure scrutiny of relevant

assessments by each agency through a system of dip sampling analysis with outcomes reported annually.

ii) Produce and disseminate multi-agency 7 minute practice briefings based on the lessons learned from the dip sampling.

iii) Staff are aware of the need to explore parents’ explanations for injuries and non-attendance at school and these are

Single Agency Leads


Outcome – March 2020 Action i) -Dip Sampling reported to CPC Annually

Action ii) -7 Minute Briefing by March 2019 Action iii) - Progress

• Annual multi-

agency file audit and single agency file audits evidence good or improving practice.


meetings is developed and the impact of each assessed.

• Analysis of responses in 2017 Staff Survey

• 7 minute practice

briefings prepared and


assessed as very good or better (risk assessment)

• No of cases

identifying good practice

• % of staff (sample)

report high level awareness/confidence in risk assessment and reporting child protection concerns.

202

considered in the context of other risk factors such as missed appointments. This should be evidenced and included in single agency assessments and recorded on systems.

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair

Reported to CPC Annually

learning/action points from single agencies evaluated.

• No of returns and evaluation of reach and impact.

6. The use of single and multi-

agency chronologies within relevant services is standard practice. They are completed to an accepted quality and viewed as a key analytical aid in identifying needs and risks both individual and cumulative.

• Partner agencies will agree and implement a common chronology format and promote and embed the use of chronology as an analytical tool in single and multi-agency practice.

• Planning for children will

be supported by single and/or multi-agency chronologies.

Single Agency Lead


Outcome - March 2020 Action i) – March 2019 Action ii) – March 2020 Action iii) – March 2018




meetings is developed and the impact of each assessed.


in 2017 Staff Survey.

• No (%) of case files assessed as very good or better (chronologies)

• % case files with”

fit for purpose” single/multi-agency chronologies

• No of cases identifying

good practice

203

• Produce single and multi-agency practice briefings on the benefits of chronologies in identifying patterns of needs and risks.

Multi-Agency Lead

Wellbeing Working Group Chair

• The ongoing programme of self-evaluation will include sampling single and multi-agency chronologies on a basis against an agreed quality standard.

• % of self-evaluations identifying good standard chronology


report high level awareness/confidence in developing “fit for purpose” chronologies

7. Guidance provided by the

National Risk Framework is embedded in practice and appropriately used in all assessments of risk and need.

Ensure decision making in respect of needs and risks is clearly recorded.

• Ensure scrutiny of case

records by each agency through a system of dip sampling analysis which will consider the quality of analysis of risk and need.

Single Agency Lead


Outcome – March 2020 Action - reported to CPC Annually




meetings is developed and the impact of each action assessed.


in 2017 Staff Survey.


assessed as very good or better (needs and risk assessments)

• No of cases identifying

good practice

• % (sample) of case records demonstrate National Guidance embedded in practice

204

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair

• Evidence form dip sampling will be presented to the Self Evaluation and Audit Group.

• % of staff (sample) report high level awareness/confidence in applying NRF guidance or agency guidance based on NRF.

8. Assessment of need and risk

consider historic and current information including information as appropriate about the wider family.

i) The Children’s Services

Information Sharing Protocol is updated to reflect the need to share relevant information proportionate to the needs of the child.

iii) An escalation process will be agreed and implemented where there are disagreements as to the information made available.

Single Agency Lead


Outcome – March 2020 Action i) – March 2018

Action ii) –March 2018

Action iii) – March 2018

• Escalation process

evaluated and assessed (i.e. how many cases are escalated and the result is agreed).

• Single and multi-

agency practice briefings are evaluated as positively enhancing knowledge.

• Case files (sample)

demonstrate the use of

• % of cases (sample) with

improved access to information

• No of cases escalated • No resolved within a

specified timescale (to be determined)

• % of respondents report

awareness/improved knowledge

205

iv) single and multi-agency practice briefings on the need to share relevant information proportionate to the needs of the child.

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair

appropriate information.

• % of positive responses

• % of responses report positive impact on practice (6 month post course evaluation)

9. IRD – The IRD is part of the

critical child protection process and functions effectively to safeguard children.

i) Produce and deliver guidance on the IRD procedure suitable for single and multi-agency practices in Fife.

ii) Create a performance management framework which evidences the effectiveness of the IRD process

Single Agency Lead


Outcome – March 2020 Action i) – March 2018

Action ii) –March 2018

Action iii) –

March 2018

• Guidance is produced

and responses are evaluated as positive.

• Performance

management criteria is identified and reporting and review processes are embedded.


in 2017 Staff Survey


report high level awareness/confidence in IRD process

• Multi-agency case file audit

• IRD evaluation

Multi-Agency Lead

IRD SOG Working Group Chair

206

Priority Outcome 4 – Relevant information is shared appropriately, clear lines of responsibility for action are understood across partners and communication is effective in minimising potential risks. (QI 1.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1) Objective Actions We will: Lead Person/

Group Timescale How will we know that

we have succeeded? Suggested Measures/Indicators

10. Agencies are aware of the need to share relevant information. Information sharing is recorded including why it was shared, with whom and why. Decisions not to share are similarly evidenced.

• Produce suitable ‘on line’ training for all staff involved reinforcing the importance to share information, the use of consent and schedules 2 & 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the importance of recording decision making rational.

Single Agency Lead


Outcome – March 2020

Action - March 2019

• A series of focus meetings is developed and the impact of each action assessed.


• Analysis of On-Line Training completion data

• no (%) of case files assessed as very good or better (information sharing)



report high level awareness/confidence in information sharing

• % staff and partners

(sample) complete Data Protection training by December 2017

Multi-Agency

Lead CPC Chair

11. Where concerns exist about child harm which may lead to child protection interventions clear lines of responsibility for

• Clear guidelines on identifying risk at an early stage and implementing measures of support are embedded across all agencies. Key risk factors

Single Agency Lead

CPC Lead Social Work CPC Lead Education


• Annual multi-agency file audit and single agency file audits

• No (%) of case files assessed as very good or better (wellbeing pathway)

207

coordination of action are understood.

are highlighted and clear steps for progression to child protection intervention are produced and embedded in guidance and training: including managing transitions as appropriate.

CPC Lead Health and Social Care CPC Lead Health CPC Police Scotland 3rd Sector CPC Lead (link to Children’s Services Forum)

Action - March 2018

evidence good or improving practice.

• A series of focus meetings are developed and the impact of each assessed.



• % of staff (sample) report high level awareness/confidence in intervening early to promote, support or safeguard a child's wellbeing.

Multi-Agency Lead

CPC Chair

208

Priority Outcome 5 – Early and effective intervention is achieved where possible, minimising the risk of harm to Children and Young People. (QI 5.1, 5.2, 6.2) Objective Actions We will: Lead Person/

Group Timescale How will we know that

we have succeeded? Suggested Measures/Indicators

12. The relationship between

GIRFEC and Child Protection and the impact of early intervention acknowledged and understood by all partners.

i) Ensure that relevant staff are clear about thresholds around individual children and that we embed our understanding into GIRFEC and Child Protection Training.

ii) Develop multi-agency guidance for staff highlighting the interfaces between Child Protection, Adult Protection and GIRFEC.

iii) Through GIRFEC and Child Protection Training and guidance ensure that professionals are aware of their responsibility to act on information as well as simply passing it on.

Single Agency Lead



Action i)- March 2019

• Annual multi-agency file audit and single agency Wellbeing pathway audits are evaluated and evidence of good or improving practice is found. • A series of focus meetings are developed and the impact of each assessed.


• Training programme evaluation is positive as to enhanced knowledge being achieved

• No (%) of case files assessed as very good or better (wellbeing pathway • No of cases identifying good practice • % of staff (sample) report high level awareness/confidence in early intervention • % of positive responses • % of responses report positive impact on practice (6 month post course evaluation?)

Multi-Agency Lead

Actions i &iii - Workforce Development Working Group Chair Action ii - CPC Chair

209

The risks from CSE are fully

understood by relevant staff in children’s and adult services and Public awareness of the risks of CSE (including amongst children and young people) is increased appropriately.

13. .

i) Continue with single and

multi – agency CSE training and awareness raising Programme

ii) Ongoing development of raising awareness of the risks of CSE with for Looked After children & young people

iii) Develop and implement

an awareness raising plan of activity with night time economy.

Single Agency Lead


Outcome March 2020 Action i & ii - Annual Reporting to CPC Action iii – January 2018

• Professionals report

increased knowledge & awareness of issues related to CSE

• Social Work Child & Family and Criminal Justice staff, residential staff, foster carers , kinship carers and supported accommodation providers report increased knowledge and awareness of issues related to CSE

• Number of awareness raising sessions held.

• No of staff trained

through single & multi-agency sessions

• % rated training as good/very good

• Data report to be developed focussing on reporting of CSE and use of specific risk assessment tools.

• Number of CSE information sharing meetings held for individual children will be reported

• Evaluation of activity proves positive with feedback indicating good/very good.

Multi-Agency Lead

CSE Working Group Chair

210

Priority Outcome 6 – A culture of effective management support and/or supervision which embodies the values and principles of Fife Child Protection Committee is embedded. (QI 7.2, 9.3, 9.4)


Timescale How will we know that we have succeeded?

Suggested measures/indicators

14. Effective management and supervision processes and structures that encourage, support and constructively challenge are evidenced by all agencies.

i) Develop and adopt common Fife CPC values and principles statement.

ii) Embed the principles of constructive challenge in all CPC & GIRFEC Training Programmes

Single Agency Lead


Outcome March 2020 Action i - March 2018 Action ii – January 2018

• A series of focus meetings is developed and the impact of each assessed.


• % of relevant staff aware of Fife CPC values and principles

• % of relevant staff who feel effectively managed and supervised.

Multi-Agency Lead

Action i) CPC Chair Action ii) Workforce Development Working Group Chair

211


WORK PROGRAMME 2017-18

MEETING ON 3 OCTOBER 2017 (SPECIAL MEETING)

Report Lead Officer / Contact Source Comments

Madras College Consultation Report

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services)

Executive Committee of 13 December 2016: Para 893 of 2016.E.C.648 (Advised 16/01 – 28 February)

Dunfermline Education Provision

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Shelagh McLean)

Change of secondary catchments required for August 2018

Reconstitution of East and West Fife Educational Trust Committees

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services)/Executive Director (Finance & Corporate Services) (Carrie Lindsay/David Henderson)

Statutory requirement

Parental Involvement Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Jacqueline Price)

Report previously pulled together in Policy Advisory Group

Education and Children’s Services Committee 29th August, 2017. Agenda Item No. 16

212

MEETING ON 7 NOVEMBER 2017


Broad General Education (BGE) Outcomes

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) Peter McNaughton)

Previously taken to Scrutiny Committee

Workforce Planning Update



Senior Phase Outcomes Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Derek Brown)


Children & Families Social Work Strategy Update

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Dougie Dunlop)

Executive Committee of 19 April 2016: Para 788 of 2016.E.C.581 (Update required)

Additional Support Needs (ASN) Strategy


Outcome from PAG

School Uniform Grant Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services)

Outcome from PAG

MEETING ON 23 JANUARY 2018


Inspections – Self evaluation

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Peter McNaughton)


213

MEETING ON 27 MARCH 2018


Pupil Equity Fund (PEF)/Scottish Attainment Challenge

Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Peter McNaughton/Shelagh McLean)

New funding from the Scottish Government – need to provide update to Committee

Senior Phase Outcomes Executive Director (Education & Children’s Services) (Derek Brown)


MEETING ON 22 MAY 2018


MEETING ON 28 AUGUST 2018


214

MEETING ON 6 NOVMBER AUGUST 2018


TO BE CONFIRMED/ALLOCATED TO MEETING DATES


N.B. Regular progress reports on Directorate Revenue and Capital Budget Outturns are note included – timescales to be confirmed.

215