NOTES - Leicester appendix... · 3 This is the latest issue of the Quarterly Performance Bulletin...

2

NOTES

3

This is the latest issue of the Quarterly Performance Bulletin for Children and Young People’sServices which is produced each quarter and distributed to managers across the Service. This issueis comprised of data for the first quarter of 2006/07 and covers the period April to June 2006. This isthe first issue of the bulletin to also include data relating to services that have migrated from theEducation and Lifelong Learning Department to Children and Young People's Services.

Please ensure that your Team members have sight of the Bulletin and that particularly pertinentpages are discussed at Team Meetings, so that performance and target setting information from theBulletin can be usefully employed in service planning and development for Teams. The Bulletin is still under development and a number of additions are planned over the coming 12months, including further information on Assessments, the LAC population, Care Leavers andDisabled Children. At the end of the Bulletin is a Feedback form, intended to help us improve thedocument and make it accessible and useful. Please complete and return this to the Policy &Performance Unit.

Penny HajekHead of ServiceChildren’s Resources

INTRODUCTION

4

NOTES

Page No

Introduction 3

Table of Contents 5

Summary of Performance Indicators 6 to 10

Referrals & re-referrals to Social Care & Health 12 to 13

Child Protection Register 14 to 15

Reviews of Child Protection Cases & Initial Conference Activity 16

Re-Registration & De-Registration Activity 17

Looked After Children - Overview 18 to 19

Looked After Children - Placement Type and Stability 20 to 23

Education and Health of Looked After Children 24 to 25

PAF C23 - Adoptions of Looked After Children 26 to 27

SEN Statementing 28

Schools in Special Measures or Have Notice to Improve 29

School Exclusions 30

School Absences 31

Distribution List 32 to 34

Feedback Questionnaire 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

Leicester Page Number

Indicator ID Summary 2004/05 Outturn

2005/06 Outturn 2005/06 Band Leicester England Family

Average Target 2006/07

PAF C19 Health of Children Looked After LAC 66.6% 79.6% 66.6% (04/05) 79% (04/05) 75% (04/05) 85% 25

PAF A70 Progress made towards a comprehensive Children and Adolescents MentalHealth Service LAC No Data 11 Not banded 11

(05/06)11

(05/06)12

(05/06) 12 -

DFES / DH PSA Increase take-up of National Healthy Schools Status Educ 82.0% 45.0%provisional

-

PAF C64 Timing of core assessments LAC 88.8% 89.7% 88.8%(04/05) 67% (04/05) 66% (04/05) 90% -

PAF A3 Percentage of CP Re-registrations LAC 16.60% 15.4% 16.6% (04/05) 13% (04/05) 15% (04/05) 13% -

PAF C20 Reviews of Child Protection Cases LAC 100% 99.5% 100% (04/05) 99% (04/05) 99% (04/05) 100% 16

PAF C21 Length of time on register at de-registration LAC 8.4% 3.3% 8.4% (04/05) 6.0% (04/05) 5.5% (04/05) 3% 17

PAF A1 Stability of placements of lookedafter children LAC 12.9% 10.8% 12.9% (04/05) 13% (04/05) 13% (04/05) 10% 21

PAF B79 LAC Population (aged 10-16) in Foster Placements or Placed for Adoption LAC -

Leicester

Revised definition for 2006/07

Summary of Performance Indicators

Applies to

OUTCOME 1: BEING HEALTHY

OUTCOME 2: STAYING SAFE

Most Recent Comparators

6



2005/06 Outturn

2005/06 Band Leicester England Family

AverageTarget

2006/07

PAF C23 Adoptions of Children Looked After LAC 10.2% 6.6% 10.2% (04/05)

7.5% (04/05)

7.8% (04/05) 9% 27

PAF C68 Timeliness of review of LAC LAC No Data 90.10% 100% -

PAF D78 Placement stability for looked after children LAC 66.5% 65.5% n/a 77% by 2008 23

PAF A2 Educational Qualifications of Children Looked After LAC 35.1% 46.9% 35.1%

(04/05)51%

(04/05)50%

(04/05) 55% 25

PAF C24 Percentage of LAC absent from school for more than 25 days (with education) LAC 16.4% 16.8% 16.4%

(04/05)12.2% (04/05)

13.4% (04/05) 13% -

PAF C69 Distance children newly looked after are placed from home LAC No Data 2.0% Not banded 2.0% -

LPSA To increase the percentage of children achieving early learning goals: Educ

Good or better in personal, social and emotional 71% 67% -

Good or better in communication, language and literacy 40% 40% -

LPSA Key Stage 2 Attainment (Level 4) Educ

English (PSA target 85% sustained until 2008) 67.8% 67.7% 1 79.5% 75.5% 76% -

Maths (PSA target 85% sustained until 2008) 64.3% 66.5% 1 75.5% 70.1% 77% -

PSA Number of schools in which fewer than 65% of pupils achieve level 4 Key Stage 2 English & Maths Educ 19 Not yet

available 15 -

No Comparators.

Applies toMost Recent ComparatorsLeicester

OUTCOME 3: ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING

No Comparators.

No Comparators.

7



2005/06 Outturn


AverageTarget 2006/07

PSA / BVPI Key Stage 3 Attainment (Level 5) Educ

BVPI 181(a) English (PSA target 85% by 2007) 64.4% 66.6% 2 75.1% 68.6% 70% -

BVPI 181(b) Maths (PSA target 85% by 2007) 63.8% 66.3% 2 74.9% 68.2% 70% -

BVPI 181(c) Science (PSA target 85% by 2007) 55.1% 59.7% 1 70.8% 61.9% 68% -

BVPI 181(d) ICT (PSA target 85% by 2007) 54% 59% 1 67% -

PSA / BVPI 38

Proportion aged 16+ who get 5 GCSEs A*-C or equivalent (PSA target of 2% rise on average per year)

Educ 44% 46% 2 55.5% 51.12% 51% -

LPSA GCSE Average Points Score (uncapped) Educ 302 311 353.3 338.6 317 -

BVPI Percentage of SEN statements prepared within 18 weeks: Educ

BVPI 43(a) Excluding Exceptions 99.4% 100.0% 4 98.1% 100% 28

BVPI 43(b) Including Exceptions 87.8% 89.6% 4 77.9% 93% 28

No Family Compar-

ator

Leicester

OUTCOME 3: ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING (continued)

Summary of Performance Indicators (continued)

Applies toMost Recent Comparators

8



2005/06 Outturn


AverageTarget 2006/07

LCED 5 Number of schools in special measures Educ 1 0 0 29

APA Number of schools requiring notice to improve Educ 29

APA Number of permanent exclusions (per thousand) at Educ

LCED 1 Primary Schools 0.35 0.17 0.55 30

LCED 2 Secondary Schools 4.65 3.80 3.34 30

LCED 3 Special Schools 2.16 6.55 0.00 30

BVPI Absences: Percentage of half-days missed due to total absence in schools Educ

BVPI 45 Primary Schools 6.53 6.12 1 5.43 5.87 6.10 31

BVPI 46 Secondary Schools 9.68 9.07 1 7.81 8.29 9.00 31

LPSA Percentage of LAC who achieve entry levelqualifications Educ 48.1% 51.7% -

Applies toMost Recent ComparatorsLeicester

OUTCOME 3: ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING (continued)

9



2005/06 Outturn


AverageTarget

2006/07

PAF C81 Final warnings / reprimands and convictions of LAC LAC -

PAF C63 Participation of LAC in reviews LAC 86.5% 86.8% 86.5% (04/05)

83% (04/05)

82% (04/05) 95% -

BVPI Participation in and outcomes from Youth Work from Regular Participants: Educ

BVPI 221 (a) Recorded Outcomes 13.35% 59.80% 60% -

BVPI 221 (b) Accredited Outcomes 13.35% 7.3% 15% -

PAF A4 Ratio of LAC who are engaged in employment, education and training (with education) LAC 0.65 0.60 0.65

(04/05)0.72

(04/05)0.67

(04/05) 0.70 -

PAF E44 Relative spend on family support LAC 40.1% 42.9% 40.1% (04/05)

39% (04/05)

38% (04/05) 43% -

PAF B8 Average weekly cost of services for LAC in foster care or residential homes LAC £579.94 £677 £579.94

(04/05)£686

(04/05)£640

(04/05) £697 -

PAF D59 Practice learning LAC 16.9 11.4 Not banded 16.9 (04/05)

22.1 (04/05)

18.4 (04/05) 12.0 -

denotes key threshold indicators.

Summary of Performance Indicators (continued)

Applies toMost Recent Comparators

Further details of these and other indicatorsare available from the PPU upon request.

OUTCOME 5: ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELL BEING DATA

SERVICE MANAGEMENT

Leicester

Revised definition for 2006/07

OUTCOME 4: MAKING A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

Comparator data currently not available (new indicator).

10

11

NOTES

12

The Department distinguishes between referrals and advice/screening, the latter being a

discussion of general concern whereas a referral is seen as a request for

assessment/services. Total numbers in each category remain high. We are looking in

particular at the number of re-referrals which are significant at 32.7% and above our

target. There also continues to be a high rate of initial contacts concerned with

abuse/neglect at 45.4% (822) of the total . Together with the categories of Family

Dysfunction, Family in Acute Distress and Disability these constitute the majority of our

work at the inital assessment stage.

REFERRALS AND ADVICE / SCREENING

YEAR TO DATE

Total Referrals1811

Re-referrals593

%age Re-referrals32.7%

QuarterYTD

Initial Contacts by Ethnicity

Total

32.7%

Referrals & Re-referrals to Social Care & Health

April to June July to September October to December January to March

32.7%

1811

12.4%

0.9%6

0.3%225

1106.1%

Other

Declined to Say

Not Asked / Unknown

103957.4%

30016.6%

1156.4%

16

White

Mixed

Asian

Black

April to June July to September October to December January to March Total1039

57.4%110

6.1%300

16.6%115

6.4%16

0.9%6

0.3%225

12.4%

1811

KIGS CH142: Re-referrals to SC&H

1811

593

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Apr to Jun Jul to Sep Oct to Dec Jan to Mar

Referrals to Dept Re-referrals within 12 months

Advice / Screening

1240

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


Initial Contacts by Category of Need (Year-to-Date)

5.5%45.4%

8.1%3.4%

6.8%12.8%

2.0%4.9%

0.4%5.9%

4.9%

Need code not yet determined (100)Abuse or neglect (822)

Disability (147)Parental Illness / Disability (61)

Family in acute stress (123)Family Dysfunction (232)

Socially unacceptable behaviour (36)Low Income (88)

Absent Parenting (7)Cases other than CIN (107)

Unknown (88)

NOTES

13

14

CHILD PROTECTION

Performance within our three key performance indicators remains good. These are:

· Re-registrations which account for 6.4% of registrations between 1 April 06 and 30th June 06· Duration on the CPR which account for 3.0% of children deregistered between 1st April and 30th June 06.· Child Protection Reviews held in time: 100%. The period since 1st April 06 has been very active with 155 (initial and review) child protection conferences held, and 78children registered and 66 children deregistered. This represents a very active system.

82% of children registered since April 06 have been children under the age of 9 years; 9% of registrations were of babieswhere the need for a child protection plan was agreed at a pre-birth conference. This shows how much of core childprotection work is about very young children.

Two areas where there is need to look further at the reasons for the profile of our registrations are: · Registrations amongst BME children: this remains relatively low at 27.3% of the current register, compared with theprofile of Leicester’s children, and the CYP Plan already highlights safeguarding of BME children as a key area of work

· Ratio of children registered per 10,000: the current rate of 44 per 10,000 is high for our comparator Authorities.Examining thresholds has been identified as an area for discussion within the LSCB, and within the Keeping children SafeContinuous Development Steering Group.

CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER: Overview

Total FemalesTotal Males

LATEST DATA SNAPSHOTS

TREND ANALYSIS

161 13946.3%53.7%

Numbers of Children on the Child Protection Register

290 287300

251

284 288 280 284296

277291 293

271 266288

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07

Dotted line shows previous year's data.

Ethnic Breakdowns

0

2

37

39

218

Other EthnicGroups (0%)

Black / BlackBritish (0.7%)

Asian / AsianBritish (12.5%)

Mixed (13.2%)

White (73.6%)

as at the end of June 2006KIGS CH01: Numbers on Child Protection

Register per 10,000 population aged under 18

42.0

53.6

41.9 42.338.0

44.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002/03Actuals

2003/04Actuals

2004/05Actuals

2005/06Actuals

2006/07Target

CurrentPosition

Age and Gender of Registered Children

20

54

4145

1

21

4640

29

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Under 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 15 16+

as at the end of June 2006

Category of Abuse of Registered Children

Neglect (113)37.7%

Physical Abuse (85)

28.3%

Sexual Abuse (18)

6.0%

Emotional Abuse (23)

7.7%

Multiple (61)20.3%


15

To date no children have been reviewed out of time.

PAF C20: REVIEWS OF CHILD PROTECTION CASES

INITIAL CONFERENCE ACTIVITY

Percentage of Review Conferences held within time

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

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

Initial Conferences (YTD)

27

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Duty & Assessment InitialConferences

Child Care Team InitialConferences


Outcomes of Child Protection Conferences (YTD) (by Child)

61

5 820

54

154

020406080

100120140160180

Number ofChildren

registered

No Childrenre-registered

Children to beregistered at

birth

Children notregistered

Children de-registered

Registrationto continue


16

Under 3 months

3-6 months

6 months - 1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3 years+ Total

13 15 14 22 2 0 6619.7% 22.7% 21.2% 33.3% 3.0% 0.0%

NOTESREGISTRATION ACTIVITY

DE-REGISTRATION ACTIVITY

3.0%Anticipated PAF C21 Outturn:

YEAR-TO-DATE

ActualsPercentage

Profile of Registrations (YTD)

73

5 30

1020304050607080

1st time registrations Re-registrations Re-registrations within 1 year

PAF C21: Length of Time on Register at De-registration

1315 14

22

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

Under 3 months 3-6 months 6 months - 1year

1-2 years 2-3 years 3 years +

17

18

LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN

At the end of June 2006 there were 477 children looked after, a similar figure toFebruary / March 2005. Although this is a lower number than in previous years, it doesrepresent a rise in numbers since November 2005 of 34 children / Y.P. This iscurrently receiving detailed attention from the Permanency Panel, LAC Working Groupand Stability Working Group with a plan to reduce LAC to 440, over the comingmonths. The increase in LAC over the last quarter has been across the age ranges, butis particularly noticeable in the 0-4 age group.

At the end of June 06 75% of LAC were subject to either interim or full care orders.This represents a small reduction from the previous quarter. The number of childrenaccommodated under a voluntary agreement (Section 20) has however risen by 14since March 06. The majority of LAC were White British, with 13.4% dual heritage.There remains a higher number of boys than girls in our care, particularly in the 5-15age group. We do not currently have a report on the religion of our LAC but plan toproduce this shortly, and therefore ask practitioners to ensure accurate recording ofthis.

Looked After Children - Overview

53.9% 46.1%

TREND ANALYSIS

LATEST DATA SNAPSHOTS

Total Males Total Females

257 220

Overall Numbers of Looked After Children (end-of-month snapshots)

469

477 477

469

461 461

456460

448 449

443

462

455

466463

420

430

440

450

460

470

480


Please note:

The charts on this page exclude respite children (legal

status V4).

Ethnic Origins of Looked After Children

14

20

24

64

355

0

0 100 200 300 400

Not asked (0%)

Other Ethnic Groups(2.9%)

Black / Black British (4.2%)

Asian / Asian British (5%)

Mixed (13.4%)

White (74.4%)

Ages and Genders of Looked After Children

16

46 4956

51

36

3

12

53

41 43

34 34

30

10

20

30

40

50

60

Under1

1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to13

14 to15

16 to17

18+

as at the end of June 2006Legal Statuses of Looked After Children

65

293

88

14 160 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

InterimCare Order

(13.6%)

Full CareOrder

(61.4%)

VoluntaryAgreementunder S20(18.4%)

PlacementOrder(2.9%)

Freed forAdoption(3.4%)

On remand,committed

for trial,detained

(0%)

Emergencyorders or

policeprotection

(0%)

We are hoping to include a chart on religion in later editions of the bulletin.

Dotted line shows previous year's data.

19

20

PLACEMENT TYPE & STABILITYPlacement type and StabilityAt the end of June 89% of LAC were in family placements – the majority being in foster care, and 46 childrenplaced with parents.

Placement StabilityPAF A1 – children experiencing 3 or more moves is a key performance indicator. At the end of June thisremained in the top band, although the number of children with 3 or more placements has risen since the lastquarter. It is of some concern that the number of children under 10 years who have experienced 3 or moreplacements is 22 – this is fewer than in March, but an increase since December 2005.

PAF D78The new PSA – Improved Stability for LAC, i.e. children who have been looked after for 2.5 years and havebeen in the same placement for at least two years is currently at 73% - this represents some improvementsince the previous quarter’s performance. We have a target to achieve an increase to 77% by 2008. It is worthnoting that the children who will be in the cohort for the final performance measurement in April 2008 arealready LAC and will have entered placement in April 2006.

There is ongoing work to look at additional actions to improve performance in relation to stability of LAC overthe coming year, which includes the role of the LAC review and children and Y.P.’s participation in their review.PAF CF/C68 is a new indicator measuring LAC reviews held in time. In 05/06 we achieved 90% , and have atarget of 100% 06/07. Future bulletins will provide further data on this PI.

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4June September December March355

74.4%44

9.2%26

5.5%46

9.6%5

1.0%1

0.2%

Total 477

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb MarNo LAC Children 469 477 477%age 3+ Placements 11.3% 10.9% 11.5%

Looked After Children - Placement Type and Stability

Please Note:

The charts on this page relate to the overall population of looked after children. We have broken the PAF A1 charts down by age group for our own monitoring purposes only.

Children looked after under short-term respite arrangements (legal status V4) are not included in this

indicator.

The table above monitors quarterly trends in terms of placement type. It counts the same base population as

PAF A1.

NOTES

With Own Parents

Independent Living

Other

Foster Placements

Residential Placements

Placed for Adoption

PAF A1: Numbers of LAC Children with 3+ Placements(by age of child)

23 23 22

30 29 33

53 5255

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Over 10sUnder 10sTotal

21

22

NOTES

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb MarNumber of children aged < 16 and looked after continuously for at least 2.5 years 212 214 213

Of Whom

Condition 1: Living in the same placement for at least 2 years 140 148 154

Condition 1: Now placed for adoption 10 10 10

Either or both conditions met 142 150 156

Indicator Value 67.0% 70.1% 73.2%

PAF D78: Placement Stability of Looked After Children

SS(LAC)24: PLacement Stability for Looked After Children

212 214 213

142150 156

67.0%70.1%

73.2%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Children in Cohort"Condition(s) met"Indicator Value

BACKGROUND

This indicator measures the percentage of looked after childrenwho have been looked after for 2.5 years or more and havebeen in the same placement for at least two years. It looks atthose children aged under 16. The Department for Educationand Skills have now placed added significance on it as ameasure of positive outcomes for LAC and it has been made aPSA Target. The DfES have stated that Leicester canreasonably be expected to achieve 77% by 2008. On currentperformance, this equates to an additional 12 per cent or 22additional children. In order to achieve the stability targetchildren will need to have entered stable placements by April2006.

Historical Performance vs PSA Target

66.0% 66.5% 65.5%

77.0%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

23

24

EDUCATION AND HEALTH OF LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN

47% of care leavers achieved 1 GCSE grade A* to G in the year 05/06, which although

remaining below national average, is a big improvement on the previous year. Our target

for this year is 55%. Early predictions for GCSE attainments for LAC is very promising.

Although our performance on completion of LAC Health Assessments improved last

year, and we planned for 85% completion this year, current indications are that we may

drop back on this performance. Staff are reminded to ensure assessments are recorded

on Carefirst.

April to June

April to September

April to December

April to March

Of whom

5 239

7 217

HIS

TOR

ICA

LC

UR

REN

T YE

AR

-TO

-DA

TE

Health checks completed within past 12 months

Dental checks completed within past 12 months

Number of children looked after continually for 12 months or more

Care leavers with GCSE (grade A* to G) or GNVQ

The OC2 return monitors the performance at GCSE level of those children who had been looked after continuously

for 12-months or more. It measures the proportion of these children who obtained at least once GCSE (or

GNVQ equivalent) at grades A* to G. It is only reported ona yearly basis.

PAF A2 monitors the performance at GCSE level of all children leaving care during the year, irrespective of how

long that child had been in care. It too measures the proportion of these children who obtained at least once GCSE (or GNVQ equivalent) at grades A* to G. PAF A2

is a key threshold indicator and therefore current performance is monitored on a quarterly basis.

March

Education and Health of Looked After ChildrenEDUCATION HEALTH

Total number of children leaving care

PAF C19 is derived from the OC2 return and again relates to those children who have been continually looked after for at least twelve months (as at 30 September). It measures the percentage of those children who have had a dental check within that period and the percentage who have had an annual health assessment. The indicator is derived by taking an average of the two percentages. The chart below looks at a rolling twelve month period ending on the last day of each quarter. Thus cases that are within time now could be out-of-time by 30

September.

June

376

September December

GCSE Performance: End of Reporting Year Submissions

40.7%33.3% 34.5%

53.8%

75.0%

18.0%27.1%

34.6% 35.1%

46.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006OC2 PAF A2

PAF A2: Percentage of Looked After Children gaining Qualifications

71.4%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Apr to Jun Apr to Sep Apr to Dec Apr to Mar

End-of-year Reporting Year Health Performance

63.4%

74.5%69.3%

63.0%

82.3%

65.3%72.0% 69.6% 70.2%

76.9%

64.4%

73.3%69.5% 66.6%

79.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Dental checks completed Health checks completed PAF C19 Indicator Value

PAF C19: Health of Looked After Children63.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

57.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

60.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

30 June 30 September 31 December 31 MarchRolling 12-months ending:

Dental checks completed Health Checks Completed PAF C19 Indicator Value

25

26

ADOPTIONS

Adoptions of LAC are based on cumulative data and

performance in this area is dependent on a number of

variables. We have achieved 4 adoptions to date this year and

are hopeful of improving performance over last year’s figures.

To date 75% of children were placed within 12 months of the

‘best interest decision’.

June September December March

412

Actual Numbers of Looked After Children (for six months or more) at the end of … The time taken from 'best interest decision' to 'placed for adoption' ranges from 27 to 520 days. The average time taken is 275 days. 75 per cent of children were placed for adoption

within 365 days of the best interest decision (DIS Indicator 1115).

PAF C23: Adoptions of Looked After Children

Actual Number of AdoptionsCumulative Data

4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


Adoptions as a proportion of Looked After Children

Cumulative Data

1.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%


Times Taken for Adoption (YTD)Duration from "Best Interest Decision" to "Placed for Adoption"

1

0

1 1 1

0 00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Up to 3months

3 to 6months

6 to 9months

9 months to1 year

1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years Over 3years

NOTES

27

SEN STATEMENTINGBVPI 43 (a) SEN STATEMENTS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONS BVPI 43 (b) SEN STATEMENTS INCLUDING EXCEPTIONS

This BVPI measure looks at the percentage of Special Educational Needs (SEN) Statements prepared within 18 weeks, including and

excluding exceptions under the SEN code of practice. A SEN statement is one that describes a child’s learning difficulties and how they are to be addressed. This is the result of a Statutory

Assessment that indicates a child needs extra educational provision that cannot be provided within normal school resources.

The PI continues to improve year upon year and when compared to

other authorities. Both 43 (a) and (b) are on course to meet their targets for 06/07.

NOTES

100 100 100 100100

0

20

40

60

80

100


2005/06 2006/07

91.8 88.5790

0

20

40

60

80

100


2005/06 2006/07

28

NOTES

SCHOOLS IN SPECIAL MEASURES OR HAVE NOTICE TO IMPROVENUMBERS OF SCHOOLS IN SPECIAL MEASURES OR HAVE NOTICE TO IMPROVE

This indicator is based on Ofsted Inspections of schools. Schools that are assessed as performing poorly fall into 2 categories:

schools requiring special measures and schools requiring notice to improve. Schools require special measures when they are failing to give learners an acceptable standard of education, and when the

persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement. Schools require notice to improve if they are

performing significantly less well than they might in all circumstances reasonably be expected to perform, but have

demonstrated the capacity to improve.

Recent years have seen a dramatic fall in the number of schools in special measures - from 32 to 0. In addition, a great deal of work has gone into ensuring no further schools become categorised as

requiring special measures.

LCED5: Schools in Special Measures

1 1

0 000

0.20.40.60.8

11.2


2005/06 2006/07

Notice to Improve

3

0

1

2

3

4


2005/06 2006/07

29

Autumn Spring Summer Total Autumn Spring Summer TotalPrimary 1 0 1 0

Secondary 27 9 36 0Special 2 0 2 0Total 30 9 39

Exclusions data forms part of the APA dataset. The data shows the number of pupils

permanently excluded in each term and is broken down into number of exclusion at

primary level, secondary level and then special schools. Primary school exclusions

have been falling for the last 5 years, but performance at secondary level and in

special schools has been erratic. However, this year's annual out-turn is set to show

an improvement at all 3 levels.

SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

NOTES

Type of School

2005/06 2006/07

SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

0

30

0 00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AutumnTerm

SpringTerm

SummerTerm

AutumnTerm

SpringTerm

SummerTerm

Primary Schools (LCED 1)Secondary Schools (LCED 2)Special Schools (LCED 3)Total

ACADEMIC YEAR 2005/06 ACADEMIC YEAR 2006/07

30

Autumn Spring Summer Total Autumn Spring Summer TotalPrimary 5.98 6.52 12.50 0.00

Secondary 8.06 8.45 16.51 0.00

Absence data forms part of the BVPI dataset. It is measured as ‘% of half-days

missed’ both authorised and unauthorised at the Primary and Secondary school level.

Rates of absence have been comparatively poor, although improving. Improvements

have been sustained at Primary schools for over 3 years. The termly data shown here

is provisional but does indicate the year's out-turn will present a slight increase for

absence at Primary schools and a slight decrease for absence at Secondary schools.

SCHOOL ABSENCES

NOTES

2005/06 2006/07

SCHOOL ABSENCES

Type of School

0123456789

AutumnTerm

SpringTerm

SummerTerm

AutumnTerm

SpringTerm

SummerTerm

Primary SchoolsSecondary Schools

Academic Year 2005/06 Academic Year 2006/07

31

32

Distribution ListDirectorate► David Oldershaw, Service Director, Strategy, Commissioning, Performance & Business Support► Andrew Bunyan, Service Director, Family Support and Safeguarding►Louise Goll, Service Director, Learning Services► John True, Interim Service Director, Business Support► Sheila Lock, Corporate Director, Children and Young People's Services► Adrian Paterson, Service Director, Strategic Planning, Commissioning and Performance► Paul Livock, Service Director, Access, Inclusion & ParticipationChildren and Family Division► Peter McEntee, Head of Service, Childrens Field Work, Room 26, St Martins► Penny Hajek, Head of Service, Childrens Resources, St Martins► George Giez, Principal Officer, Emergency Duty Team, Grey Friars► Steve Bond, Service Manager, Leaving Care & Children's Services, Room 27, St Martins► Andy Smith, Service Manager, Child Care Team (Cluster A), Beamont Way► Kathy Summerton, ESCR, Beaumont Way► Dave Starling, Service Manager, Child Care Team (Cluster B), Grey Friars► Carol Shaw, Service Manager, Child Care Team (Cluster C), Grey Friars► Lorraine White, Service Manager, CAMHS & Family Support Services, Hillview► Mike Evans, Service Manager, Residential Care, Eagle House► Mark Tingley, Service Manager, Placements inc Fostering & Adoptions, Eagle House► Maggie McGrath, Service Manager, Commissioning/LAC, Eagle House► Julie Jordan, Service Manager, LAC Safeguarding, Town Hall► Pat Nawrockyi, Service Manager, Child Protection & Independent Review, Town Hall► Elma Breteny-Dexter, School Nurse Manager and Neighbourhood

Leicester Federation of Children's Services Division► Kate Galoppi, Head of Service, (DAAT), Unit Q, Troon Way Business Unit, Humberstone Lane► Mary Campagnac, Head of Service, Youth Offending Team, Eagle House► Hilal Barwany, Project Manager, Leicester Federation, 16 New Walk► Mary-Anne Rickwood, Team Manager, Leicester Federation, 16 New Walk► David Thrussell, Service Manager, Youth Offending Team, Eagle House► Freda Parker Leehane, Performance Manager, Youth Offending Team, Eagle House► Chris Bush, Service Manager, Disabled Children Co-ordination, Fosse Neighbourhood Centre► Mark Fitzgerald, Principal Officer, Social Inclusion Project Officer, 2nd Floor, 16 New Walk► Sue Harrison, Service Manager, Children's Policy & Planning Unit, Town Hall► Steve Parker, Policy & Planning Officer, Childrens Joint Planning, Town Hall► Rabia Raza, Policy & Planning Officer, Cultural Diversity, Town Hall► Irene Dooher, Policy & Planning Officer, Generic & CAMHS, Town Hall► Bernice Bennett, Service Manager, Children and Family Resources / Life Long Learning, York Road► Annette Johnson, Team Manager, Family Centres, The Federation

33

Distribution List - continuedResources► Colin Sharpe, Head of Finance, B5, New Walk Centre► Pradeep Gadhok, Service Manager, Contracting & Procurement, B5, New Walk Centre► Yogesh Patel, Accountancy Team Manager, B5, New Walk Centre► Bob Drake, Head of Information Systems, Grey Friars► Margaret Hooley, Principal Officer, Policy & Performance Team, B8, New Walk Centre► Chris Lewis, Business Support Manager, Childrens Link, B5, New Walk Centre►Paul Johnson, Systems Officer (Children & Families), Carefirst, Grey Friars► Sophia Chaudhry, Systems Officer (Electronic Records), Room 22, Conway Building, Grey Friars► Inderjit Jutla, Policy & Performance Research Co-ordinator, B8, New Walk Centre► Imran Suleman, Performance Information Officer, Policy and Performance Team, B8, New Walk Centre► Richard Collins, Performance Information Officer, Policy and Performance Team, B8, New Walk Centre► Policy and Performance Team Library

Education► Jay Hardman, Education & Lifelong Learning, Marlborough House Floor 5► Janis Warren, Head of Special Needs Teaching and Student Support Services, New Parks House► Sue Welford, Head of Standards, Sovereign House► Richard Whitehouse, Head of Effectiveness, Sovereign House► Jen Johnson, Head of Information Management and e-Services, Marlborough House

Team Managers►Julie Springthorpe/Ann Carter, Team Managers, Family Resources IST , Hillview,►Pradip Panchmatia, Temporary Team Manager, Family Support, Hillview►Sarah Hammond, Team Manager, Dunblane Avenue Children’s Home, 31 Dunblane Avenue, Rushey Mead►Barbara Merrell, Team Manager, Wigston Lane Children’s Home, 126 Wigston Lane, Aylestone►Francis Dallyn, Team Manager, Fostering, Eagle House►Faye Andrews, Team Manager, Adoption, Eagle House►Emma Ranger, Team Manager, Duty and Assessment Service (Childrens), Grey Friars►Joy Coles, Team Manager, Duty and Assessment Service (Childrens), Grey Friars►Graeme Muir, Team Manager , Child Care (Cluster A), Beaumont Leys Team, Beaumont Way►Sonia Grant, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster A), St Matthews/Belgrave Team, Beaumont Way►Cathy Moriarty, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster B), Saffron/Knighton Team, Grey Friars►Rebecca Small, Team Manager, LRI Maternity and Children Hospital Social Work Team, Level 0 Windsor Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW►Helen Middleton, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster C), Goodwood Team, Grey Friars►Jen Scott, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Janice Brien, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Venice Duncan, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall

34

Distribution List - continued►Jeanette Harvey, Family Group Conferences, LAC Safeguarding, Town Hall ►Charmaine Blake, Team Manager, Family Aides & CBII, Hillview ►Michelle Roehrig, Temporary Team Manager, Specialist Childminding Services, Hillview►Glenn Jones, Team Manager, Netherhall Road Children’s Home, 15 Netherhall Road ►Tom Hall, Lead Snr Social Worker, Looked After Children, Eagle House►Teresa Selby, Team Manager, Fostering, Eagle House►Pat Pitman, Team Manager, NRF Conduct Disorder Service, New Street►George Stanley, Team Manager, Duty and Assessment Service (Childrens), Grey Friars►Darren A’Court, Team Manager, Duty and Assessment Service (Childrens), Grey Friars ►Izzy Martin, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster A), Mowmacre Team, Beaumont Way►Gita Patel, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster B), Central Team, Grey Friars►Paul Martin, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster B), Parkside Team, Grey Friars►Sandra Holyoake, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster C), Disabled Children Team, Beaumont Way►Sheila Matthews , ACPC Policy Officer, Children’s Services Planning Unit,Town Hall►Lesley Booth, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Glenys Woodward, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall ►Jill Randall, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Lesley Higgins, Advocacy Service & Children’s , Rights Officer, LAC Safeguarding, Town Hall ►Robin English, Child & Therapeutic Service, 8 St. Martins

►Patsy Petrie , Team Manager, Barnes Heath House Children’s Home, Humphries Close, Rowlatts Hill►Kev Curtis, Team Manager, Tatlow Road Children’s Home, 2 Tatlow Road, Braunstone Frith►Julie Kazakevics, Team Manager, Looked After Children, Eagle House►Georgina Oreffo, Team Manager, Kinship Care, Eagle House►Paul Henry, Temporary Team Manager, Leaving Care, Grey Friars►Dawn Halford, Acting Team Manager, Duty and Assessment Service (Childrens), Grey Friars►Karen Dawson, Team Manager, Duty and Assessment Service (Childrens), Grey Friars►Jasmine Nembhard, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster A), Northfields Team, Beaumont Way►Terri Bevan, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster B), Fosse Team, Grey Friars►Helen Smith, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster B), West End Team, Grey Friars►Charmaine Odlum, Team Manager, Child Care (Cluster C), Highfields Team, Grey Friars►Sue Farrer, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Helen Bannister, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Sylvia Hide, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Caroline Tote, Independent Chair, Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service, Town Hall►Sheila Ross, Team Manager, Asylum Team & Persons From Abroad Team, Grey Friars

35

This is the first edition of the quarterly performance bulletin for 2006/07. It remains under development and we are eager to listen to the comments of our audience and take advice on how we may improve the document. Ultimately we are looking to make the bulletin available via the Leicester City Council Intranet and we have now introduced a small number of education indicators for the new reporting year. If you have any other comments or suggestions please contact us ( 8323 NWC) or alternatively detach and return this page to Inderjit Jutla, Policy & Performance Unit, New Walk Centre (B8):

Name (optional):

.....................................................

QUARTERLY BULLETIN: FEEDBACK FORM1. Do you find the Quarterly Performance Bulletin useful? YES / NO

2. Are there any other staff members not currently on our distribution list who you feel would benefit from receiving a copy? If so, please name them:

........................................................... ...........................................................

........................................................... ...........................................................

3. Is there anything currently within the bulletin that you do not find useful?

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

4. Is there anything currently not included which you would like to see introduced?

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

5. Any other comments? ..........................................................................................................

............................................................................................. Please continue overleaf if needed.

`

NOTES - Leicester appendix... · 3 This is the latest issue of the Quarterly Performance Bulletin...

Documents

Transcript of NOTES - Leicester appendix... · 3 This is the latest issue of the Quarterly Performance Bulletin...