Agenda and minutes

Councillor Brian Parbutt (personal)

Councillor Azad Choudhry (personal)

Councillor Gul Khan (personal)

Councillor Thulani Molife (other Council business)

Councillor Roger Steel (other Council business)

Assim Ishaque (Parent Governor Representative)

Peter Moyes, Director of the Crime and Drugs Partnership (Tim Spinks attended the meeting to represent the Crime and Drugs Partnership)

None

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014

The Committee confirmed the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014 as an accurate record and they were signed by the Chair for the meeting.

Councillor Glyn Jenkins informed the Committee that the purpose of this item was to explore how risks associated with changes to probation services in Nottingham can be mitigated.

Tim Spinks, Head of Service Crime and Drugs Partnership, introduced a report of the Director of the Crime and Drugs Partnership outlining the Nottingham City Council context of the transforming rehabilitation agenda and identifying risks of the process for the Council and the City more widely.  He highlighted the following points:

a)  The probation landscape is changing significantly and the Crime and Drugs Partnership (CDP) has been working with local and national partners to respond to these changes.

b)  A number of risks have been identified for the Council to be aware of, including:

i.  future provider of services to low and medium risk offenders is unknown

ii.  performance management arrangements are unclear

iii.  impact of future changes to the way in which unpaid work is delivered

iv.  increased demand for local services

v.  transition of young people from the Youth Offending Service to adult provision

vi.  readiness of the secure estate to deliver the ‘through the prison gate’ approach

c)  There has been discussion about how to mitigate these risks but currently there are still a lot of unknown factors.

Briefing paper

Jo Mead, Chief Executive of The Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company Limited (DLNR CRC) and Sarah Chand, Deputy Director (Midlands) of the National Probation Service (NPS) introduced a report on the changes to the probation service.  They gave a presentation on the impact of the changes locally and how risks are being managed, highlighting the following points:

a)  The work of probation services hasn’t changed but since 1 June 2014 it is now split between two providers, one supporting high risk offenders and one supporting low and medium risk offenders.  The two providers need to work closely together. 

b)  In terms of partnership working, there is agreement between the two organisations on which is the most appropriate to engage with which partnership group.  This provides a single point of contact on probation matters for partners and the probation providers work internally to share relevant information.  Where necessary, for example the Safeguarding Children’s Board, both organisations are involved.  While organisational structures have changed many of the key personnel have stayed the same and this has helped to maintain good relations with partners during the transition period.

c)  The DLNR CRC is investing in its workforce and processes, including through external benchmarking tools, to ensure that it isn’t the partner that holds back Nottingham in progressing innovative solutions.

d)  As the Probation Trust it was a challenge to fulfil all of the expected roles and functions, and the split provides an opportunity to focus on appropriately managing risks of harm and reducing reoffending rates through development of specialisms.

e)  The National Offender Management Service is the major commissioner for service delivery and it contract manages the NPS and CRC.  There is local accountability through the local Criminal Justice Board and local strategic partnerships.

f)  There has been a lot of interest in the contracts to provide probation services for low and medium risk offenders.  While prospective providers will have their own proposals for models of delivery there will be room for local discussion and scope to influence the way services are delivered.  Part of the contract will be ‘payment by results’.  The detail of this is still being discussed.  ‘Payment by results’ can have greater risks for providers and therefore might have implications for contract failure.

g)  Initial risk assessments are carried out by the NPS and there is a risk escalation process to ensure offenders are managed by either the NPS or CRC.  The NPS focuses on those at high risk of serious harm (not reoffending).  The CRC focuses on those with a low or medium risk.  Both organisations will assess harm/ reoffending risk factors.  If the CRC assesses that an individual’s risk level has increased then they can be transferred to the NPS if necessary.  If an individual’s risk level decreases they will remain with the NPS and not transferred to the CRC.

h)  The assessment process also applies to young offenders who will then be allocated to either the NPS or CRC.  Previous arrangements for the transition to adult provision will remain in place.

i)  The performance management arrangements used for the Probation Trust are still intact to be used for new providers, but it is likely that they will have a more commercial emphasis with greater levels of contract management than previously.

j)  The NPS and DLNR CRC have monthly meetings with relevant contract managers and this includes reviewing how the two organisations are working together.  The organisations also have some mutually dependent targets that require co-operation to achieve. 

Following questions from councillors, Jo Mead and Sarah Chand provided the following additional information:

k)  It is intended that the efficiencies created by new ways of working will create the capacity to support those who have been in custody for less than 12 months (who have previously not been supported by probation services).  Overall the budget for probation provision should remain the same but more people will receive intervention and support.

l)  There is a range of different community payback schemes and teams meet together to discuss their projects and share learning.  Community payback is well-regarded and there is currently commitment to retaining it.  This ambition will be communicated to the new provider but it isn’t possible to guarantee future provision at this stage.  Charging for work has been discussed for several years and does happen in other areas of the country.  Community payback schemes are expensive to run and therefore it is understandable that providers would be interested in recovering some/ all of this cost.

m)  It is intended that work to deliver the ‘through the prison gate’ approach will commence quickly after the appointment of the new provider.  The prison service has done a good job of managing the local prison population so that it is in a position to facilitate this.

n)  There are significant structural issues in implementing the ‘through the prison gate’ approach for women.  Most women tend to be held away from home – in Nottingham women tend to be released from Peterborough.  Women also have different issues to men and often require targeted support.

Tim Spinks commented that the presentation had provided some reassurances about risk areas, including in relation to the spilt between dealing with risks of harm and reducing reoffending.  He also highlighted the opportunities for local performance management via the Criminal Justice Board.

RESOLVED to review progress in implementation of the changes to probation services and management of associated risks once the provider for low and medium risk offenders has been appointed and commenced work.

Briefing paper by Nick Lee, Head of School Access and Improvement

Nick Lee, Acting Head of School Access and Improvement, introduced a briefing paper on the provisional 2014 exam results for the end of Key Stages 2 and 4; and progress on the Education Improvement Board.  He gave a presentation highlighting the following issues:

a)  The Council’s role in relation to schools and education has changed but it still retains many statutory functions, including acting as a champion for children and their families.  The Council is keen to take a proactive approach to fulfilling this role and to supporting schools regardless of their model of operation.

b)  The exam results data is currently provisional and will be finalised in January 2015.

c)  At Key Stage 2 there have been year-on-year improvements in results but progress has stalled in 2014.  Writing ability has been a concern in the City and therefore it is pleasing that this area has continued to see improvements. 

d)  A key indicator for OFSTED is ‘expected progress’ and it is expected that pupils will achieve 2 levels of progress between each Key Stage.  The continued improvement in ‘expected progress’ at Key Stage 2 has slowed but there has been a narrowing of the gap in attainment between girls and boys which is positive.  This reflects the focus that has been placed on boys’ attainment in recent years.

e)  At Key Stage 4 there is volatility in the results due to changes in the examination system, for example some vocational courses are no longer reported and this has disproportionally affected the City as many schools have promoted these vocational courses in the past.

f)  Based on the provisional data, 47% of pupils in Nottingham achieved 5 A*-C GCSES including maths and English, which is a 3% drop compared with 2013.  Due to changes in reporting this is not a like for like comparison.

g)  The exam results do not include the performance of City residents attending County schools.  In the future the Council would like to obtain an aggregate picture of the results for all pupils resident in the City to understand the overall levels of attainment for the City.

h)  The Education Improvement Board has replaced the Challenge Board.  Two issues that it has focused on so far are attendance and behaviour.

i)  In terms of behaviour, the Board is trying to get common reporting of behaviour across all schools and is holding schools to account for managing low level disruption/ poor behaviour by pupils.  This is based in part on parental concern about inconsistent behaviour management.  Reviews of behaviour issues have been undertaken in all secondary schools currently in Special Measures and the schools are being supported to make improvements.

j)  There have been a range of activities over the last year focused on improving attendance.  This has included rewarding good attendance; communicating the message that attendance is everyone’s responsibility; and working with the Priority Families programme.  The increase in school places has supported improved attendance as it is easier for families with several children to get them to school on time if they attend the same school.  There has also been targeted work with Looked After Children to understand reasons for non-attendance. 

k)  It is intended that the Governors Academy will be launched in January 2015.  It is being run in conjunction with Nottingham Trent University to provide accredited training for school governors.  A senior OFSTED inspector has been involved in developing the programme content.  This is one part of work with schools to address governance issues, which was a theme of a number of recent OFSTED inspections. 

Following questions from councillors, Nick Lee, Alison Michalska, Corporate Director for Children and Adults, and Councillor Sam Webster, Executive Assistant for Schools, provided the following additional information:

l)  It is unfortunate that some vocational qualifications are no longer included in the reporting as many of these courses were good for young people in Nottingham.  Work will take place to explore how these changes affected exam performance in Nottingham compared with other similar cities.

m)  At this provisional stage exam data is provided by schools.  One school has not provided their data so far.  Full data for the City will be available when the final approved results are published in January.

n)  Negative publicity about education in the City during 2013/14, including in relation to the OFSTED reports of secondary schools, has encouraged the Council to place even greater emphasis on doing what it can to ensure that, regardless of their social and economic circumstances, every child receives a good education.

o)  The transition from primary to secondary schools is an important period and is a focus for the Education Improvement Board.  The Council is re-engaging with secondary schools including through the Secondary Heads Partnership, supported by a senior OFSTED inspector.  Issues identified so far include the need to work with children at an earlier stage before transition and learning from models that work elsewhere.

p)  Common reporting and approaches to poor behaviour (as has been put in place for attendance) would be beneficial.  It is important to have consistency across the City.

q)  Responsibility for training and supporting governors lies with individual schools and they will have to meet the cost of attending the Governors Academy. 

r)  Attendance at the Governors Academy will be prioritised for current governors and they will need to make a commitment to taking part.  In the future and/or to fill vacant spaces, it could be opened more widely – Nottinghamshire County Council has already expressed interest.  The Council’s Governors Service can support people interested in becoming a governor in the future.

The Committee discussed options for future scrutiny of education issues.  In addition to the possible issues for future scrutiny identified in the report, other issues suggested included:

·  Annual reporting of exam results

·  Narrowing the gaps in educational attainment of vulnerable groups, including use of the Pupil Premium

·  The impact on communities of improving school attendance and behaviour

·  Recruitment and retention issues

·  Pupils with Statements of Special Educational Needs, and links with criminal behaviour.

RESOLVED to include consideration of educational attainment and issues affecting attainment on the scrutiny work programme at least once a year, as a minimum.

Report of Head of Democratic Services

Jane Garrard, Senior Governance Officer, introduced a report of the Head of Democratic Services detailing the scrutiny work programme for 2014/15.

RESOLVED to:

(1)  Appoint Councillor Glyn Jenkins as Chair of the scrutiny review panel looking at promoting equalities issues through commissioning and procurement; and

(2)  Request that past scrutiny review reports are published on the Council’s website.

Report of Head of Democratic Services

Jane Garrard, Senior Governance Officer, introduced a report of the Head of Democratic Services detailing the response to recommendations arising from scrutiny reviews carried out during 2013/14.

RESOLVED to note the responses to recommendations arising from scrutiny reviews carried out during 2013/14.