5

Families First

November 2015

Staffordshire Schools Forum Outcomes of a review of the quality and impact of the work of families First Local Support Teams in Staffordshire, as requested by Schools Forum In March 2015.

2

Contents Section

Page No.

1. Executive Summary and Recommendations 3 2. Purpose 6 3. Methodology of the Review 7 4. Current Context and Review Findings 9 5. Funding Profile 16 6. ‘Quick Wins’ 16 7. Proposed Performance Reporting Framework 17

8. Next Steps 21

Appendices

A. Original Scoping Paper B. Offer for all Schools and Traded Offer for Academies 2015/16 C. Schools’ Leads Survey Results and Full Analysis D. Stakeholder Consultation in 5 selected schools in

South Staffordshire and Cannock E. Focus Groups with School Staff: summary of discussion F. Staffordshire Comparison with a Sample of

Other Local Authorities G. Schools’ Leads Survey: Full Schedule of Comments Received. To be tabled at

Schools Forum. H. Complaints and Compliments Data I. Draft Performance Report Dashboard J. Funding Profile: Summary Diagram K. Draft Terms of Reference for future Head Teacher Reference Group

arrangements L. Protocol for the resolution of dispute between schools and Local Support Teams

3

1. Executive Summary and Recommendations

At their meeting on 31 March 2015 Schools Forum commissioned a review of the impact of the work of Families First Local Support Teams on outcomes for school-aged children. This review has provided us with a valuable opportunity to further our shared commitment to securing the most effective early help services for children and their families. The priority throughout the review process has been the opportunity presented to us to improve the quality and impact of Local Support on outcomes and ensure that the best possible use is made of existing resources in so doing. The timing of the review coincided with an SCC internal review of the wider Children’s System and programme of engagement with local partners – of which schools are key.. This has helped to place the review of LSTs in the wider context of early help and targeted intervention for children in Staffordshire. Steve Barr, Chair of Schools Forum, agreed a proposal to set up a Head Teacher Reference Group to steer this work. Special School Forum, Primary HTs Forum and Secondary HTs Forum were invited to nominate at least 6 Headteacher / Governor representatives from across the county to form the Reference Group which has been supported in its work by Families First and other colleagues in the county council. The Reference Group reported back to Schools Forum in October on progress with the review. The Reference Group has met on 5 occasions between June and October 2015 to ensure the review is delivered on time and meets the requirements of Schools Forum. Each meeting lasted 3 hours and adopted a ‘workshop’ approach in order to promote honest and open discussion, and a solution-focussed approach to a challenging agenda. As issues have been raised and agreed in discussion by the Reference Group, so the opportunity has been taken to take immediate action where this has been appropriate. These ‘quick wins’ are summarised in Section 6 of the Report. One of the first tasks for the Group was to agree a county-wide survey to schools and analysed the results. It has received reports on engagement with children, young people and parents who have been involved with their Local Support Team, and engaged with school staff in 3 focus group discussions that have provided the opportunity to explore some of the issues raised by the survey in greater detail. Sections 3 and 4 summarise the consultation process and outcomes from the review in detail. The consistent and overarching priority for the Review has been to better understand the impact that the work of Local Support Teams have on Outcomes for children and young people, and to ensure that we secured a clear understanding of how schools and LSTs could better work together to secure continuous improvement in the achievement of the most effective support for children and families. As part of this, three themes emerged from each of the consultation processes. These highlighted the need to secure improvement in:

• Consistency - of practice by Local Support Teams across all 8 districts, and a county-wide focus on improving the quality of that practice

• Capacity - ensuring that there is a clear and shared understanding of the role of Local Support Teams, and that there is sufficient capacity for them to be able to fulfil that role. (Note: Since April 2015 and during the period of the Review, 25 practitioner posts that had been held as vacant as a result of budget uncertainty, have been filled.)

4

• Communication - improving communication between schools and Local Support Teams as an essential component for improved collaboration when working with children and families.

A key objective for the Review has been the development of a framework to secure accountability to schools for addressing these issues, and for clearly demonstrating the impact of the involvement of LSTs on outcomes for children and families. A performance report card has been developed and a cycle of reporting proposed, through which families First Local Support Teams will demonstrate the quality, consistency and impact of their work: this is described in Section 7. Staffordshire County Council co-funds the integrated Families First Local Support Teams. Schools Forum makes an annual financial contribution of £1.448m from Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) into this joint approach. For every £1 that DSG contributes, the County Council adds a further £5 so that Local Support Teams (LSTs) can deliver interventions with families with children that have a number of additional needs. These are needs that cannot be met by a single service but that do not meet the threshold for specialist safeguarding intervention as defined in the thresholds set out by the Staffordshire Safeguarding Children Board –SSCB -Thresholds for Intervention. They are often interventions that will prevent escalation to a higher level service/intervention and therefore serve to alleviate long term costs. DEMONSTRATING ‘VALUE FOR MONEY’ The original question posed by Schools Forum in March 2015 was: How can we assess the extent to which Families First Local Support Teams represent Value for Money? The survey to all schools reflected back the request: “Explain what you would consider ‘value for money’ and how this could be measured? “ Seventy (59%) of respondents answered this open question and the analysis of the five most frequently raised points is set out below.

1. Successful outcomes for families and cases closed at appropriate agreed

point (40)

2. Accessibility and Responsiveness (13)

3. Communication (10)

4. Proactive and Early Intervention (8)

5. Workloads and Continuity for Schools of Worker (7)

The key issues of Capacity, Consistency, Communication, Quality and Impact are clearly reflected here, and the focus of most of the discussion with head teachers during the review process was that of improving outcomes for children. The emphasis on the importance of evaluation of the service on the basis of impact – of the achievement of outcomes for children - was by far the strongest theme. The comments made by respondents in the survey on this issue lend colour and detail to the work that is done going forward. These will be tabled at the Schools Forum meeting on 9 December. Whilst the review did not produce was a clear formula for evaluating ‘value for money’, it is clear that the key indicator will be the demonstration of positive impact on outcomes for children by the work of Local Support Teams.

5

Benchmarking One of the tasks begun in the review process however has been that of benchmarking outcomes, provision and investment with those neighbouring authorities that bear close comparison with Staffordshire. These are: Derbyshire Worcestershire Herefordshire Shropshire Nottinghamshire Warwickshire Information has been requested on the way in which they offer early help and how they work with schools in their counties and Ofsted Reports are one of the sources that then facilitate an appreciation of the impact and quality of those services. There are no common national measures for the effectiveness for ‘early help’, which significantly hinders independent benchmarking. Nevertheless, in the conversations that have been had with four of the above authorities, there is a clear appetite for local collaboration – not least for the extent to which this will inform the ‘value for money’ question by developing common comparators. Again, this is work that will continue beyond the conclusion of the review with the intention of informing the Performance reports for schools, going forward.

RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of the Head Teacher Reference Group to Schools Forum are that: 1. Funding from the DSG to Staffordshire County Council Families First for the

delivery of Early Help for children and young people with complex and additional needs be approved for 2016/17 at the level provided for current year.

2. The Head Teacher Reference Group is expanded to include wider cross-county representation. Proposed and draft amended Terms of Reference for the Group are attached as Appendix K.

3. The Performance Framework outlined in Section 7 is adopted: to begin in April 2016.

4. Schools Forum agree to receive annual reports from the Head Teacher Reference Group, as a means to monitor the impact of the work of Local Support Teams and to inform future financial decision-making.

6

2. Purpose of the Review This report outlines the work undertaken by the Head Teacher Reference Group working to the agenda and scope set by Staffordshire Schools Forum to review the extent to which families First Local Support Teams deliver value for money in their work to provide early help for children and young people in Staffordshire. The purpose of the Review was to:

a) Describe and articulate the service which is currently provided so that schools are clear about what the School Forum DSG allocation contributes to

b) Undertake a review to establish how effective the current service is and what impact this has on children and young people of school age, therefore meeting the requirements of School Forum (as a customer)

c) Make recommendations for the future provision of this service which so these can

inform decision making at School Forum re: financing and accountability mechanisms; and council decision making regarding service commissioning and provision within the context of the wider Children’s System Review

Whilst an invitation was issued to all head teachers to signal their interest in joining the reference group, the group never exceeded more than 9 head teachers. These were:

Matthew Ball, Chaselea Pupil Referral Unit Ruth Cartlidge, Woodcroft First School Liz Clarke, St-Edwards C E Academy (Middle) Simon Clarke Moorside High School Nicky Crookshank, Cheslyn Hay Sport and Community High School Alison Gibson, Endon High School Dr David Wright , Sir Graham Balfour School ( Secondary)

Jude Slack, Stafford Manor High School Jim Turnbull, Head of School, Loxley Hall and Cicely Haughton Schools

Although the group covered all school phases, it did not represent the whole of the county. Further invitations did not result in additional membership, but the consultation processes sought to ensure that schools from across the county had the opportunity to express their views and to become involved. The head teachers on the Reference Group set the tone for the review from the outset, ensuring a clear focus on the consideration first and foremost of the impact of LST involvement on outcomes for children. The Group were also concerned that – wherever possible - the prompt identification of issues that could be addressed with immediate effect by Families First should be explored and addressed. These ‘quick wins’ are referenced later in this report. The Local Support Team ‘Offer to All Schools and Traded Offer to Academies’ (See Appendix B ) was developed and communicated to schools during this process, and the document in its early stages was shared with the Reference Group for comment and advice. Whilst the conclusion of this work has done much to address the first requirement of the review, articulated in a) above, there has been a consistent emphasis on the need for improvement in communication in discussion at the reference group, in the focus groups and from the outcome of the county-wide survey.

7

The effective communication between Families First Local Support Teams and schools about children and families, and about local issues and priorities, is a prerequisite for positive working going forward. At a county level, the means by which Families First and schools can communicate about service performance and development is of equal importance. Measures to achieve optimum effectiveness in our communication with each other at both of these levels are embedded in the outcomes of the review. The achievement of a positive working relationship between LSTs and schools in the future is dependent upon our success at a strategic level in evidencing the quality and impact of the work of Local Support Teams, and on our ability at a local level to ensure that this reflects the experience of individual schools.

3. Methodology Overview A Reference Group was formed in June 2015 with a membership comprising of Head Teachers and Staffordshire County Council representatives. Five three-hourly meetings took place between June and October, providing opportunities for honest, creative and open discussion. The Group was facilitated by Staffordshire Council but driven by the Head Teachers: Matthew Ball, Ruth Cartlidge, Liz Clarke, Simon Clarke, Nicky Crookshank, Alison Gibson and Jude Slack. A plan was developed to appraise the quality and impact of Local Support Teams in Staffordshire. Analysis of multi-layered engagement and intelligence provided key themes to demonstrate the current perspective of all stakeholders relative to the LST Service. Insight was sought from:

• School Representatives, including Head teachers and Pastoral Leads;

• Children & Young People/Parents & Carers;

• Staffordshire County Council Insight Team;

• Other Local Authorities.

Methods of engagement included a survey, one-to-one interviews, internal data gathering and benchmarking with other Local Authorities. (i) From the perspective of Children, Young People and Families

Head Teachers and the Children’s Voice Project jointly selected children, young people and parents/carers for invitation to take part in feedback interviews (See Appendix D for interview findings). During September, the Children’s Voice Project interviewed 18 children and 18 parents & carers. The interviews focused on the following five schools:- Moorside High School, Werrington; St. Edward’s C E Academy, Leek; Woodcroft First School, Leek; Cannock PRU, and Cheslyn Hay Sport and Community High School. The interviews provided useful insight into the perspectives of children, young people and their families in relation to current positives, elements for improvement, and suggestions for improvement to both the LST and Schools’ services which impact on the lives of children and families both at home and within the school setting.

8

(ii) From the perspective of Schools – Survey of School Leads A web-based survey targeting Head teachers, Pastoral Leads and Governors took place during October providing an opportunity for Staffordshire schools across all phases to share their views on a range of relevant issues and to evaluate the extent to which the Local Support Teams currently provide value for money. Head Teachers took the lead on developing the methodology and questions for the survey. In total 119 completed questionnaires across all school phases were returned. The majority of responses were submitted by Primary Schools (79). The survey will be replicated in 2016 with consideration given to changing the available options to reduce the number of inconclusive responses.

Please note, to ensure the satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels are directly comparable in the main body of the report, the satisfaction rates have been reported as a proportion of responses that expressed a view, and excluded responses that were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ and ‘not answered’. Details of all responses (including these two categories) are contained in the full Survey Analysis Report in Appendix C.

(iii) From the perspective of Schools – Focus Group

An invitation was sent to all schools in Staffordshire providing an opportunity for face to face discussion on the impact of LST provision in a Focus Group setting. Two Focus Groups facilitated by Liz Clarke (Head Teacher) and Karl Hobson (County Manager, Targeted Services, SCC) were held during the first half of autumn term. Discussions focused on the following topics: the referral process, communication/access to information, the step up / step down process, role of the Link Worker, overall impact of the Service, and value for money. The topics aligned with questions set out in the School Leads Survey to ensure that collated feedback could be cross referenced (See Appendix E for Focus Group Findings). In terms of representation, 12 people attended from 10 schools; seven Primary/First schools, 2 High schools and 1 Middle school. The following Districts were represented: Staffordshire Moorlands, Stafford, Cannock Chase and South Staffs, while schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme, East Staffordshire, Lichfield and Tamworth were not represented.

(iv) From the perspective of Schools – ‘Deep Dive’ Case File Audits

Five joint case file audits were undertaken by a Head teacher and Families First District Lead (unconnected with the chosen case) and the key themes identified are reflective of the key themes identified in this report. The audit process was helpful in enabling Head Teachers to shape questions as part of their approach to Early Help and plans for future development. The positive experience of both parties in jointly completing the audits was shared across the group and used to inform the future Performance Framework.

(v) From the perspective of other Local Authorities – Benchmarking As a means of exploring alternative models, six Local Authorities were approached (Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Shropshire and Herefordshire) to discuss their current approach and ideas for the future. In

9

addition, statistical data for these authorities and Staffordshire’s statistical neighbours was sourced from the DFE and OFSTED. The quantitative data is included in Appendix F and the narrative from the engagement with other local authorities will be used to inform future discussions.

4. Current Context and Review Findings

Contextual Data At a local level, an analysis of available performance data relating to LSTs showed that between1st September 2014 to 31 July 2015:

• Schools were the main referrers for LST support (45% of referrals);

• Attendance was the main reason for requests for support (58%).

• Over twice as many referrals relating to parenting / family support or behaviour came from Primary Schools than High Schools.

• LSTs had 8,699 open cases (school age) across the year and 47% of cases (school age) were open for more than 7 months.

• 86% of Early Help Assessment / interventions for school age children were led by LSTs

• 98% of children or young people referred to LSTs for parenting/behaviour support are not excluded from school within 12 months.

• On average, 75 cases are stepped down from Specialist Safeguarding to LSTs and 49 cases stepped up to Specialist Safeguarding per month.

Survey Responses This review has taken into account feedback from stakeholders across Staffordshire’s eight districts and across all school phases. Almost a third (30%) of all schools in Staffordshire responded to the Schools Leads Survey (See Appendix C) which equates to 119 questionnaires. Just under half of all responses (48%) came from Staffordshire Moorlands, East Staffordshire and South Staffordshire. Newcastle-under-Lyme and Cannock Chase returns represented more than a quarter (26%), while the remaining 26% were spread across Stafford, Lichfield and Tamworth. (See chart below)

16%

16%

16%13%

13%

10%

10%

6%

% Returns by Districts

Moorlands

East

South

Newcastle

Cannock

Stafford

Lichfield

Tamworth

10

In terms of response by school phase, more than two thirds of responses were received from Primary/First Schools (69%), while High School returns represented almost one in five (19%). Returns from Middle, Special, Nursery and PRU schools were low in comparison, representing the remaining 12%. However, the population size for Primary/First and High schools is significantly greater, hence the higher overall percentage return compared with other school phases. In consideration of response by District and School Phase, Primary Schools from all districts contributed to the survey. All districts except Tamworth contributed from the perspective of High Schools. Two Nursery School returns were received from Newcastle and Cannock; five Middle School returns from Moorlands, Stafford and East Staffs; two PRU returns from Newcastle and Cannock; and five Special School returns from Moorlands, Stafford, East Staffs and South Staffs.

Analysis of the engagement results and performance data highlighted a number of issues were consistently identified across districts and school phases: communication, consistency, capacity (including accessibility), quality of practice (including skills, conduct and timeliness) and impact on positive outcomes. Further analysis is provided below on each of these key themes. Some comments have been included in the narrative as illustration: Appendix G to this report contains the full schedule of comments received in the School Leaders Survey. This will be tabled at Schools Forum on 9 December.

Reminder: to ensure the satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels are directly comparable in the main body of the report, the satisfaction rates have been reported as a proportion of responses that expressed a view, and excluded responses that were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ and ‘not answered’. Details of all responses (including these two categories) are contained in the full Survey Analysis Report in Appendix C.

Moorland

sNewcastle Stafford East South Cannock Lichfield Tamworth

Nursery 1 1

Primary 11 12 8 12 10 10 9 7

Middle 3 1 1

High 4 1 2 3 7 3 2

PRU 1 1

Special 1 1 2 1

02468

101214

No

.

Number of Responses by Area and Type of

School

Schools Review on LST Support

11

Attendance The work that Local Support Teams undertake as part of their role to fulfil the Authority’s statutory functions in relation to the promotion of good school attendance are outside the scope of this review, as this is not funded through the Dedicated Schools Grant and within the purview of Schools Forum. Nevertheless, as an integrated service which responds to the range of issues for children and families, of which poor school attendance may be only one, it was important for the survey of school leaders to include an invitation to comment on the impact of LST work on attendance. As an issue of particular importance for schools, this response is herewith reported separately. Of the head teachers who responded to the survey, only 9 chose not to comment on the impact of LSTs on school attendance, and 28.57% (34) were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied. Twenty seven (22.7%) of the total respondents were either dissatisfied or extremely so, and 49 (41.18%) were satisfied / extremely satisfied. Where comments specifically referenced attendance then they to represented a range of perspectives: ‘Attendance – always available, very helpful, concise information given’ contrasting with ‘..This has been an area of concern as our EWO had been absent for a long time which meant there was no co-ordinated approach to any families causing concern. However, I have now met with the newly appointed EWO who looks to be wanting to work in a pro-active way which has restored my confidence.’ This latter reflection on the importance of Capacity is reflected throughout the Review. Capacity (Including Accessibility and Availability) School satisfaction for the capacity of Local Support Teams is low, with just 32% (24) satisfaction reported in the school survey. The impact of capacity issues for schools is illustrated by a comment from a school stating ‘it seems to us that there is a specific time allocated to cases and when this is fulfilled, there is a rush to get the young people and families ‘off their books’. Whilst Families First were able to report a reduction in long term sickness absence over the last four months, schools nevertheless felt that LSTs did not have the capacity to undertake all allocated tasks to the schools’ full satisfaction. This is interpreted as a reflection not only of the limited number of practitioners, but also of the limitations of skills and experience, for example ‘I do think that the thresholds are blurred and that LST staff are involved at a level that is putting them in situations that really should be dealt with at a higher level.’ Comments included that ‘staffing is a huge issue – my perception of the service is that more demands are made upon it’, and ‘we are aware that the staffing of the LST is lower than it should be for effectiveness to be maximised – this is probably why there is inconsistency in practice and decision making’. In a focus group, schools reported a perceived ‘high rate of absenteeism’ and not enough LST staff available to meet the needs of schools. One parent interviewed by the Children’s Voice Project shared this concern, citing ‘too many changes in staff’ along with ‘staff sickness and absence’ perceived as key reasons for a lack of capacity. In terms of schools’ accessibility to the LST service as determined by current thresholds, a 60% (50) satisfaction rate was highlighted in the survey. Some comments highlighted greater flexibility, ‘I am quite satisfied. The complex nature of cases involved means this is not always an exact science. This is where flexibility of engagement is appreciated and beneficial’. Other respondents felt differently, stating that ‘Thresholds are confusing’ and ‘Children seem to be discharged when there is still a need for intervention.’

12

In terms of the referral process, 69% (55) of respondents were satisfied. Survey comments were mainly positive, ‘Very efficient, and follow through on processes, and ‘easy to contact, with swift responses’. However, feedback from the workshop highlighted that access to the LST service could be improved. Comments include ‘the ‘referral process [was] often fragmented’ and ‘LSTs often prioritise poorly’. Acknowledgement of receipt of documentation at the point of request for support was identified as an area for improvement, as was swifter notification of the practitioner to whom work had been allocated. Some schools highlighted that a lack of early / preventative help means that children, young people and families could hit crisis point if interventions are not timely. Once within the service, 65% (41) of schools who expressed a preference were satisfied with the way in which Local Support Team practitioners assisted children and families in accessing other services, with comments including ‘LSTs have services and agencies they can refer into at a quick pace’. Consistency of Practice Consistency in LST provision across the county was highlighted throughout the review as an area for improvement. The school survey found that 58% (49) of those who expressed a view were satisfied with the reliability of practice and decision making at their LST, whilst 42% (36) were ‘extremely’ or ‘somewhat’ dissatisfied. The workshops highlighted a lack of consistency both across the county and in districts in case work, progress updates, premature closure of cases and outcomes achieved, with some differences in practice reflected in the discussion between school representatives. Children, young people and parents held the same views on case closures prior to the achievement of outcomes. Staffing issues, including sickness and unfilled vacancies with limited contingency planning can also impact on the consistency of the LST service received by schools. The need for greater consistency is a thread which runs throughout the key themes (communication, capacity, quality and impact) and there is a commitment to learn from best practice to promote greater consistency in the offer to schools. ‘The service is good when working well but lots of changes and staff pressures have meant service is patchy and communication is not as good as it could be.’ ‘I would say it depends on who your LST workers are.’ ‘When families are referred for LST support there is inconsistency in the service provided. Dependant on staff and capacity.’ There were a small number of comments that suggested that – as LST staffing levels had improved in recent months, there was room for optimism that the consistency of the service was improving. Communication Schools’ experiences varied and one of the key themes from the review related to the need for improved communication. Mixed feedback was received, ranging from ‘communication between the LST and schools is really good’ to ‘there is no communication between myself and the LST’. Sometimes parents and carers have concerns. One parent interviewed by the Children’s Voice Project cited not being kept informed by either schools

13

or LSTs, ‘Neither schools nor LSTs kept us informed about my child’s challenging behaviour in the school setting until the situation hit crisis point’. Schools surveyed reported 58% (46) satisfaction rate with the LST communication of updates on case progression with areas for improvement highlighted. Comments range from ‘clear and regular communication – very positive’ to ‘I have to chase for updates – often do not receive feedback’. The communication of case outcomes was specifically highlighted as a key area for improvement: 52% (42) of school representatives reporting satisfaction in the survey. Comments included that LSTs ‘always keep our school well informed and notify the school with updates and outcomes’ contrasted with ‘cases can be closed without the school being informed of any outcomes’. Work is underway to address this issue and is described in more detail in Section 6, ‘Quick Wins’. There is some encouraging feedback on the impact of the Link Worker role in terms of positive communication and partnership working with schools achieved a 63% (52) satisfaction rating. Comments included that ‘it has been helpful to have a named person and regular meetings to update/discuss cases’ and ‘They are useful as it keeps schools updated about LST involvement we might otherwise be unaware of’. However, the Link Worker practice was noted as inconsistent and as insufficient in some areas, for example a school commented that they had been unaware that the LST were working with some children/young people in their school. Several schools reported uncertainty regarding who to contact at their local LST, which indicates a need to strengthen the role of Link Workers in some areas. Some schools reported that link meetings had not taken place, or that they had been few and infrequent. One of the obstacles to effective communication was felt to be the use of jargon, and a general lack of understanding of how Local Support was organised. Suggestions to address this included the an introduction to LSTs for school colleagues during induction to promote understanding, greater use of existing communication routes (e.g. Head Teacher Forum meetings) and this suggestion has been taken up in the design of the proposed Performance |Framework (See Section 7.) In addition, creative opportunities for engaging with schools in rural settings could be adopted to promote communication (such as hot-desking in schools for LST practitioners – particularly those working in more rural areas.) Quality of Practice (including Skills, Conduct and Timeliness) Whilst the review found an inconsistency in the quality of provision by LSTs across the county; areas of good practice were identified, presenting an opportunity to share countywide learning. Schools highlighted in the survey that, where a strong focus on practice continuity was evident (e.g. interventions, arm’s length monitoring, joined up support) that this is reflected in improved outcomes. There were concerns about the timeliness of interventions, and some viewed LSTs as unresponsive and/or insufficiently pro-active. The importance of monitoring progress in securing continuous improvement in the quality of practice is reflected in the Performance Report (see Section 7). LST coordination and leadership of teams around the child/family reflected 63% satisfaction (42 responses) in the survey. Comments included ‘my Link Worker has been fabulous – she organises regular meetings, feedback and has chased up any enquiries I’ve had regarding input from other workers’, with others as less positive - ‘coordinating TAFS have mostly been completed by me’.

14

In terms of the parenting interventions delivered by LSTs, 63% of schools (40 responses) were satisfied with the delivery of parenting programmes (such as ‘Strengthening Families’). The use of the Outcomes Star was highlighted as an area of good practice at a focus group, as it demonstrates good outcomes for case work and the group suggested it could be rolled out to schools. There was a mixed view from schools regarding the step up / step down process to statutory Social Care with a 54% satisfaction rate amongst schools (34 responses), with comments including that ‘the stepped down cases are usually passed to the school to monitor and to address ongoing issues.’ Feedback from the focus groups included that LSTs generally work well with schools when cases are stepped up to statutory safeguarding. A similar view was expressed of LSTs support to children and families as they leave statutory intervention (60% satisfaction (32 responses)). Comments included ‘I feel that it is sometimes frustrating that families who have been supported previously are not easily supported again – or at least signposted to further/alternative agencies who can support’. The quality of, and process for, case closures was identified as an area for improvement with some schools of the view that cases were closed too soon and – importantly - before improved outcomes could be secured. There was a concern that premature case closures take place in the absence of consultation with stakeholders and before the original outcomes have been achieved. Parents and carers consulted by the Children’s Voice Projected concurred with this view. Given the emphasis placed by schools on evaluation of the service in terms of the outcomes achieved for children, work to address this issue has been started with the pilot projects in South Staffordshire and Staffordshire Moorlands (see Section 6) and the proposed performance report dashboard has a specific emphasis on evidencing outcomes achieved (see Appendix I). Families First internal casework auditing process, which focusses on the quality of practice, revealed that 80% of the expected case file audits due between September 2014 and July 2015 (on average of 6 per district per month) had been completed. Internal audits demonstrated a range in case file quality with 19% deemed ‘inadequate’. Of the cases audited, 73% showed clear evidence of child/young person engagement and 81% of assessments were felt to have clearly reflected what life was like for the child/young person. One of the methodologies used in the review has been to jointly audit with schools and it is proposed that this practice is continued across the county. This is a further feature of the pilot in the Staffordshire Moorlands and South Staffordshire districts. The knowledge and skills of LST practitioners received 73% satisfaction by schools (61 responses). Comments varied from ‘the LST team worked well in partnership with home and school – extremely good at understanding the complex needs of individual families and the relationship with schools – very professional team’ to ‘one of my concerns is around the appropriate level of expertise of the staff to deal with the issues they are expected to deal with’. Parents/carers felt that ‘skills and knowledge varied between practitioners’. The range was significant in in responses from schools rated the professional conduct of LST practitioners particularly highly in the survey, with 89% satisfied (88 responses) with their professionalism. Comments included that ’LST staff are all excellent professionals with a genuine desire to support and make a difference’ and ‘there is no concern around professional conduct during school meetings/visits’. There were some comments that reflected an alternative view , including ‘I have found staff from LST to be unprofessional and to have a total disregard for schools, school staff and the part we play in supporting

15

families’. Despite the largely positive feedback, Families First are concerned that no school should have cause to respond in this way and are undertaking targeted improvement work with specific districts. Analysis of the Complaints received in 2014/15 (see Appendix H) showed that 18% of complaints related to staff conduct (3 complaints, of which 2 were partially upheld). The complaints which were partially upheld related to ‘unprofessional conduct’ and ‘lack of information given’. Effective partnership working was rated positively by 67% of those schools who responded with a clear view (61 responses)). Comments were mixed, ranging from ‘there is effective partnership working’ to ‘I sometimes feel we need to do quite a lot of prelim work when our professional opinion should count to a greater extent’. Timeliness of responses to initial enquiries achieved a 78% satisfaction rate in the school survey (55 responses) although the comments were mixed and ranged from ‘very efficient and follow through on process’ to ‘it is rare to get a response at all, and even more rare for actions to result’. Parents and carers’ views on timeliness relate mainly to waiting times for contact or between visits being longer than they would have wished. Impact on Outcomes Views on the impact of LST interventions on children, young people and families, as drawn from the responses to the questions in the survey, were largely encouraging but varied depending on the target outcome to be achieved. Schools were most satisfied with the LSTs’ impact on issues relating to children’s wellbeing (75% satisfied - 66 responses), children’s emotional wellbeing (67% - 53 responses) and family engagement (67% - 54 responses). Schools satisfaction levels were lower for areas including behaviour (60% - 41 responses). Nevertheless, some schools expressed significant dissatisfaction with the impact of LST intervention and it is crucial that we explore these responses in detail in order to adequately address the issues that lie behind these views. An improvement planning process has been instigated in one area as a direct result of the review: the challenge is to ensure that an ongoing process of engagement with schools continues and is used to drive improvement in outcomes for children as ‘business as usual’. Whilst some schools reflected that they could recognise the positive impact that LSTs had had on outcomes for children – ‘The LST played a key role with a number of families with targeted support’ - a number of the comments reflected a scepticism that LST involvement had any impact at all. These included: ‘Support for our school is non-existent. Impact on my school is negative’. ‘The intervention did not lead to a change in behaviour in child/family at home which was the purpose of the intervention’ ‘Some interventions from LSTs have been more helpful than others.’ ‘I can’t see any.’ Children, young people and parents/carers interviewed by the Children’s Voice Project reported higher satisfaction with outcomes achieved in Primary/First Schools, citing raised confidence in younger children and positive changes both in school and at home. The

16

views of older children and their parents/carers interviewed by the Children’s Voice Project were less positive. Suggestions for improvement in the impact on children and families’ outcomes included greater support for emotional and mental health needs, more perseverance in engaging with hard to reach families, recognition of smaller outcomes as positive progress, realistic target outcomes, more consistent key working (and effective handovers when required), a longer term approach to case closures involving all stakeholders on the agreement of outcomes achieved (not time limited) and more regular reviews of progress.

5. Funding Profile The diagrams attached as appendix were presented to the Headteachers reference group as representational of the funding profile of Families First Local Support Teams.

6. ‘QUICK WINS’ During the review process the Reference Group identified some issues that have already been progressed, as they were not dependent upon the outcome of the review. The common theme for these adjustments has been improved clarity in the relationships between schools and Local Support Teams, and are summarised below; Communication

• Termly communication from Families First to all schools, providing them with an updated ‘contact list’ for all staff in each school’s Local Support Team on a termly basis.

• Agreement of a protocol for the resolution of any case-based disagreement between a Local Support Team practitioner and school staff. (Attached as Appendix L)

Consultation with schools about the closure of individual LST involvements One of the key issues raised by Head Teachers on the Reference Group was the concern that Local Support Teams withdrew from cases prematurely and whilst there were still vulnerabilities for the child/young person. As a consequence, work is being progressed to amend LST business processes in order to facilitate automatic consultation with schools takes place at the point where a review of work with a child and family signals that LST involvement may conclude. Evaluation of LST involvement by schools There is a clear need for accountability to schools for the work that Local Support Teams undertake with school-age children. A means of promoting this at a local level will be the automatic issue of an evaluation questionnaire to schools to solicit their views of the work that has been undertaken with a child/young person. A format has been developed by Families First and the Head Teachers on the reference Group, and will be trialled in tandem with the consultation process (see above paragraph). The form will be returned directly to the Business Improvement and Development Team who will record and report upon feedback independently of ‘the business’ to Local Support

Performance is

monitored through

internal processes and

scrutiny by elected

members, and through

the newly established

Attendance Working

Group

17

Team District Leads, and to the Head Teacher Reference Group as part of the half-termly report (see section 8 of this report: Performance Reporting Framework). Joint Induction Families First have agreed that the induction of all new head teachers and pastoral leads can include an orientation visit to meet with the appropriate the Local Support Team. Arrangements for the extension of this invitation have yet to be finalised.

7. Proposed Performance Reporting Framework One of the key issues raised by Schools Forum in March 2015 was that of the absence of a framework within which the Forum could consider regular performance information about the impact of the work of Families First Local Support Teams. The Head Teacher Reference Group have considered and agreed proposals for a Performance Framework which would address this issue. Proposed Performance Reporting Framework

Governance Head Teachers on the Reference Group want to continue to meet, ensuring first that the Group is expanded and thereby representative of districts across the county, and of all phases. A proposed reporting cycle for the sharing of Local Support Team performance information in the form of a Report Dashboard is set out above. The cycle has been designed to facilitate accountability at both county and district level. A proportion of this data is regularly produced as internal management reports for Families First Targeted

18

Services management team and used in supervision with District Leads of Local Support Teams. Development of the Report Dashboard The Reference Group worked on the development of a Report Dashboard, designed to report on capacity, quality of practice, engagement and communication with schools and on the impact of LST work. The dashboard format includes, for each indicator. A narrative section will be completed by Families First in response to 2 questions:

• What does this data tell us?

• What are the proposed actions to improve? (The draft Dashboard is attached as Appendix I ) Data Sources Local Support Teams use Capita One as their case management and recording system, and the business processes and reporting content for these systems has recently been revised. The transfer on to this new system means that current data reports will not be available until the New Year. However, those reports will be far more detailed in terms of impact and outcomes for children. In the design of the Dashboard we have sought to use this opportunity to full advantage. The Families First Business Improvement and Development (BID) Team produces the data reports directly from the Capita One system, as they do for all Families first and SSCB internal reporting processes. This lends a degree of objectivity to the presentation of the raw data, which it is for LST managers to then explain and interpret. The BID Team will be the ‘return address’ for consultation responses from schools, and will produce the initial analysis of those returns. The Children’s Voice Project, which is managed within the BID Team, will conduct an annual stakeholder engagement process with children, young people and families who have been involved with their Local Support Team and produce an independent report of their findings in terms of the quality and impact of that experience. Finally, the Survey to School Leaders which was conducted in September 2015 will be replicated in 2016 and the outcomes compared with the benchmark set by this year’s survey. It is planned for this survey to be undertaken on an annual basis so that the rate of improvement, as defined by schools themselves, can be tracked. Key Elements of the Report Dashboard Capacity An early consideration for the Head Teacher Reference Group was the ‘capacity’ of Local Support Teams to meet the expectations of schools to work with children, young people and families. This issue was then highlighted in the responses to the survey and in the focus group discussions, and it is therefore important that the information produced for Head Teacher representatives The analysis of need across the county which was used as the basis for the allocation of practitioners was shared with the Group, as was the

19

management processes for maximising the capacity in terms of practitioner time available to work with children and families. The measure agreed is:

• the trend showing the impact of long term sickness and maternity leave on capacity across the country and on each of the districts.

The accompanying narrative from Families First will inform schools on the ways in which difficulties are being managed eg covering from other districts, managing caseloads differently, increasing the hours of part-time staff. Data which will facilitate the monitoring of the volume of work that Local Support Teams are managing, and the nature of that work, will also be reported. This will include:

• # of requests for support, and the origins of those requests

• from the requests from schools: the top 5 reasons for the support being required – by primary / secondary phase

• # of school aged children open to LSTs where there are additional vulnerabilities eg SEN, LAC , on a Child Protection Plan

• # of cases stepped up to / down from, Statutory Safeguarding Units

• Average length of LST interventions

• Number of cases open at month end Monitoring trends in the above, over time, will enable schools and Families First together to reflect on the extent to which demand for services for school age children may vary, and to jointly consider how best to respond. Communication Effective communication with schools is fundamental if the partnership between Local Support Teams and the school communities in their areas is to make a difference for children. Communication has to be effective at the case work level – in relation to work with individual children and families – and between LSTs and schools as organisations. A pilot programme has been set up as one of the practical outcomes from the review, to trial a process for consultation with schools prior to the conclusion of LST involvement with a child and family, where that child was referred to the LST by a school. This pilot is to explore the most effective process for achieving this: the commitment to ensuring that this action is achieved has already been made. Three indicators have been agreed for inclusion on the Dashboard as reflective of the effectiveness of LST communication and engagement with schools. These are:

• % of LST involvements closed: school confirmation evidenced

• % Link Worker meetings taken place, as scheduled

• % of schools that report that Link Worker meetings have achieved their objectives (annual data to be sought through the School Leader Survey – see above)

Consistency and Quality Local Support Team managers audit case records on an ongoing basis and report on the quality of the case work that is evidenced. Work is already underway to improve the consistency of this audit process, which requires colleagues to look at the work of teams

20

from other districts. Not only a powerful process for the promotion of good practice and challenge, this is also reflective of the strong management oversight that Ofsted expect to see in any Early Help service. Managers will draw out from the outcomes of the audit processes, that data which reflects work undertaken with school age children. This will then be reported to schools as a section on the Dashboard entitled ‘Management Oversight and Quality of Casework Practice’. This will be reported as the % of cases audited that were rated as: - Outstanding - Good - Adequate - Inadequate against a framework that reflects national expectations for effective early help practice. (It should be noted that the selection of cases for audit is undertaken by the BID Team, and not within the control of LST managers.) An annual audit undertaken by the BIDT will also report on the extent to which the voice of the child is evident in the Early Help Assessment, the record of case practice, the case reviews and the closure process. The audit is particularly concerned to evaluate the extent to which practitioners have focussed upon what life is like for the child, when assessing need and planning action. Impact Local Support Teams practitioners maintain a record of the range of issues for the families with whom they work, and these are summarised to facilitate service management and planning. The following have been selected as proxy indicators for the issues that Head Teachers felt to be the most important. Two common questions are posed against these issues. They are:

• Are Local Support Teams engaged with the right children and families? (As measured by the number of involvements).

• What is the impact of Local Support? (As measured by the outcomes achieved.) The proposal therefore is to interrogate the impact of work by the LST to improve outcomes for children when they have been referred for support for the following reasons: School Attendance 1. Child/young person’s school attendance is a cause for concern 2. Child/young person is missing out on education Behaviour 1. Child is disruptive in school 2. Child is at risk of exclusion 3. Child is in alternative provision for behaviour problems Emotional Well-Being 1. Child’s behaviour suggests low self-esteem and/or poor emotional well-being 2. Child is self-harming/considering self-harming 3. Child has caring responsibilities for a family member

21

4. Family is unable to support the child’s emotional needs Physical Well-Being 1. Child has signs of poor personal hygiene and physical care 2. Child engages in risky behaviour (eg. sexually active, substance misuse including alcohol). 3. Child at risk of child sexual exploitation Parental Well-Being 1. Evidence of domestic abuse in family in the last 12 months. 2. Substance abuse (inc. alcohol) by parent is impacting on care of child. 3. Parent/carers are being treated for or self-medicating for anxiety and/or depression. 4. Parent/carer is under 21 and unsupported by friends or family. Family Life 1. Family life is chaotic and needs of children are not regarded as important. 2. Adults living in household have limited experience of parenting and lack confidence. 3. Home is poor/overcrowded/in need of repair. 4. The family are unable to provide for their basic needs.

8. Next Steps

Subject to the decision of Schools Forum, it is proposed that the Head Teacher Reference Group is re-convened and that further work is expedited, building on that which has already been achieved with pace and ambition. The function of the group going forward will be to act as a forum for the securing accountability by Families First Local Support Teams, refining and embedding the framework described in the above section. It is hoped that the Group may well consider its role more widely and define its purpose in terms of progressing joint development and collaboration with Families First: the shaping and evaluation of the pilot projects in South Staffordshire and Staffordshire Moorlands is already evidencing how this can work. The aspiration is that the Group of Head Teachers that have steered this work will expand and form the nucleus for a future programme of collaboration between school and Families First Local Support Teams, going forward.