Agenda item

The Commission considered and discussed the quarter 2 2022/23 performance report.  It was noted that this report had been prepared in line with the new corporate approach to performance reporting, with performance progress tracked under each of the themes in the Council’s Corporate Strategy, plus a data appendix specific for the Commission; in relation to the performance metrics and actions reported for this quarter against the People Scrutiny Commission remit:

- 38% of priority measures were on or above target (6 of 16).

- 64% of priority measures had improved (9 of 14).

- 86% of actions were currently on track or better (25 of 29).

It was noted that members had submitted the following questions/points in advance of the meeting (these are set out below together with written responses from officers):

a. Questions/points raised in advance by Cllr Townsend

Q1. General question: What is the difference between ‘on target’ and ‘on schedule’ when used within these documents?

Officer written response:

Performance indicators monitor progress against set milestones (e.g. build 100 houses: Q1 = Tgt 25 / Q2 Tgt = 50 / Q3 Tgt = 75 / Q4 Tgt = 100). At any given reporting period, progress is compared to the target. If at Q2 performance is 49 it will be recorded as ‘Worse than target’; if performance is 51, it will be recorded as ‘Better than target’ and if performance is 50, it will be recorded as ‘On Target’.  The term ‘On Track’ is used for the actions and does not use such precise parameters; the lead manager is asked to consider where the action is, in terms of achieving its goal.   The term ‘On Schedule’ is the term used to describe the progress of the combined KPIs and actions for each theme.

In response to a follow-up question from Cllr Townsend at the meeting, it was confirmed that where targets were graduated through the year, the latest/relevant ‘in-year’ position was recorded.

Q2. Appendix A1 - Thematic performance clinic report – children and young people: The narrative from the Director/author of p6 refers to school attendance. There are comparisons between term 1 for 2021 and term 2 for this year – we need ‘like for like’ if comparisons are going to be made to provide apparent evidence of improvement. There is a statement that reiterates how guidance becomes statutory later this year – this was pulled in May 2022 so why is it still being stated in formal reports?

Officer written response:

It is accepted that to make comparison meaningful, the same time periods need to be analysed. Please see detailed below the figures relating to the Bristol Inclusion and Fair Access Panel (BIFAP) which meets on a fortnightly basis to identify the most appropriate education provision for pupils at risk of permanent exclusion. The figures below indicate the number of pupils who have actually moved as a result of the BIFAP process. Comparison between the two academic years Terms 1 and 2 indicate a significant reduction in the number of pupils 

2021-22    -         Term 1 - 39

                             Term 2 - 40

2022-23    -         Term 1 - 12

                             Term 2 - 12

The guidance document referred to in the question above refers to ‘Working Together to Improve School Attendance’ (published May 2022) which is currently non-statutory with a plan for it to become statutory no sooner than September 2023. We have received a letter from the DfE dated 16^th December 2022 to confirm that despite changes to the Schools Bill, it does not mark any change to policy in terms of attendance. This position was also supported via a brief webinar provided by the DfE.

The period between the guidance changing from statutory to non-statutory provides a period of time to facilitate LA planning and included in this is the trial of the Locality Attendance meetings which includes one to cover independent schools (in line with the guidance Working Together to Improve School Attendance and the DfE Attendance Self-Assessment).

The Attendance Locality Meetings will be evaluated in due course. The meetings are co-chaired where possible and provide an opportunity to develop a community of practice and share ideas. It is important for the local authority to work in partnership with our independent schools due to the links between safeguarding and attendance.

Q3. The Attendance team are working as though the above will become statutory, but it was made clear in May 2022 that this was not going to happen. DSG funds as well as General Fund are being used in this non-statutory area of work (fee paying independent schools) – Why is this administration using scare resources to support the fee-paying sector? The DSG is a ring-fenced piece of funding that cannot be used to fund any area other than state education but this administration is using it to support fee-paying schools as a choice – this must stop it is a mis-use of public funds

Officer written response:

It is not always possible to draw a clean line between statutory and non-statutory activity - for example, the communication methods provided by the LA to schools to help them to carry out their statutory duties (recognised nationally by the DfE as good practice) in itself may not be a statutory service but is cost effective in supporting a cohort size of around 63,000 pupils.

Under general public law principles, LAs have an obligation to take into account the ‘Working together to improve school attendance’ guidance in exercising their functions and, as such, should give due consideration to that guidance when making decisions about their attendance service and on school attendance matters, and this includes independent schools.

We have checked with our DFE advisor about the relationship between other LAs and the independent sector in relation to this area of activity and Bristol was described as ahead in its thinking and practice.

In noting the above response, Cllr Townsend stated that whilst recognising that the authority had safeguarding duties to fulfil for all children regardless of where they were being educated, and accepting that certain non-statutory work was happening, DSG should only be used to support state educated children.

Q4. Besides the non-statutory top-up system that will be subject to review as part of the Delivering Better Value in SEND programme, what other areas of non-statutory work is this administration choosing to fund with the scarce educational funds? Are these in danger of also being a mis-use of public funds in the way the use of the DSG to support the independent sector currently is? Who/how knows this?

Officer written response:

The Delivering Better Value in SEND (DBV) programme and the High Needs Block programme are the work streams where a deep dive of these issues will be undertaken. The programmes have identified key areas of focus. More than half of all local authorities have been invited to join either the Safety Valve or DBV programmes.  Bristol is part of the DBV; this programme is a robust evidence gathering programme to support local authorities to identify the most impactful changes that can be made to improve outcomes for children and young people. Key work streams will include the private sector (both Schools and Alternative Learning Provision). £1.1m will come from the DfE to support any non-statutory roles such as the core programme team and core delivery partners.

The Schools Forum has again agreed to top-slice funding to enable transformation work in Inclusion and SEND. This includes funding a small core programme team. Programmes such as the Belonging with SEND school-based inclusion projects are funded through this funding stream.

Non-statutory spend is more commonly thought of as that which funds early support and early intervention activities aimed at improving outcomes for children and young people and is key in ensuring the de-escalation of the severity of need and reduces recourse to expensive high-cost placements.

In discussion, the Executive Director: Children and Education advised that scrutiny members would be kept informed of progress in taking forward the DBV in SEND programme.

Q5. Appendix A1 - Thematic performance clinic report - economy and skills: P7 clearly indicates there are serious issues with targeting employment work with disadvantaged groups – City of Bristol College is not the only post-16 provider in this city, what work is happening with 6^th form colleges and other providers?

Officer written response:

The Council’s Post-16 team works closely with a wide range of providers to meet the needs of young people who are NEET or at risk of NEET from disadvantaged communities. The team has established an Into Learning network with over 200 members - including front line staff working with young people, post-16 providers and youth services. Through this forum, providers are able to feed in important updates about local courses and advice services, and front-line workers are able to bring individual cases to help identify appropriate post-16 places. Over the last year, a number of new transition panels have also been established together with key education settings – including schools and alternative learning providers. These panels include key stakeholders that can support individual young people aged 15/16 to support their successful transition into post 16 education. All these information sharing and re-engagement activities involve our partner FE colleges, St Brendan’s Sixth Form College and local schools and academies with sixth forms, as well as a wide range of independent training providers serving young people most at risk in Bristol. For any young people who disengage from post-16 education, training and employment, there are a range of in-year short re-engagement courses that help get young people back on track - including those provided by The Prince’s Trust, Creative Youth Network; 16-19 Independent People; and Hartcliffe & Withywood Ventures.

Q6. How is this administration recording the success of mainstream and other education settings in ensuring their year 11 students have a successful transition to post-16 and remain there?

Officer written response:

The Post-16 Team have a statutory responsibility to track all young people of academic age 16/17 and up to 25 for those with an Education Health and Care Plan. On a monthly basis, the team reports to the DfE on the number of young people in this group who are in learning, who are not in education, employment and training, and those whose current status is Not Known. As part of our data collection, we are able to identify post-16 outcomes achieved by mainstream and other education settings, including the young people who progress and which provider they progress to. This data is shared on a regular basis with our Post-16 Strategy Group which oversees our performance and supports our collaborative improvement planning.  

Q7. BPPM224a (Reduce the number of suspensions from primary schools) and BPPM224b (Reduce the number of suspensions from secondary schools): given the caveats around data collection/definition/internal trust/unlawful suspensions/impact on individual students in terms of sessions lost and incidents incurred, we need to have some discussion about what is happening to ratify this.

Officer written response:

Data in relation to formal suspensions and exclusions is ratified through the school census process. The Exclusions Task and Finish Group has been set up to examine the factors underpinning suspension and exclusion activity in the city and to facilitate reductions and early intervention to support inclusion. This is a multidisciplinary group including schools, local authority representatives and stakeholders.

b. Question/point raised in advance by Cllr Wye

Re: BPPM291b - Number of service users (aged 65+) in tier 3 (long term care):   I wonder if some of the reason for this going in the wrong direction is that all the Extra Care Housing places have been taken up?  I imagine there is not that much turnover in Extra Care Housing so it can get tied up.  It is after all a very effective way at managing demand just before tier 3.  I wonder if officers have any comment.

In response to this question, the Director: Adult Social Care confirmed that extra care housing was a tier 3 service.  A positive approach was taken to maximise the number of individuals with long term care needs who were able to live in extra care housing rather than residential care.  There had been a reduction in the number of older people living in residential care homes; further detail of the data via Power BI could be made available on request.

The Commission RESOLVED:

- To note the report and the above information.