Agenda item

Jane Seymour introduced the report (Agenda Item 10), which aimed to update the Schools Forum on the invest to save projects agreed in 21-22 (and carried forward in to 22-23). The recommendation within the report was to make the following two of the invest to save projects permanent: the Autism (ASD) Fund and funding for children who were Emotional based school avoiders (EBSA). The recommendation was based on the outcomes achieved by both initiatives.

Jane Seymour drew attention to the ASD Fund, which was covered in detail under section four of the report. The allocation for the initiative was £52,685. There was a detailed impact report included within Appendix A to the report. The summary report covered some of the objectives that were achieved and risks that had been avoided including children becoming EBSA, being excluded or needing very expensive specialist placements. It was felt that the benefit of the area of work justified the relatively small amount of funding being sought.

Lucy Hillyard provided information on the impact of the EBSA Fund. A large amount of input went into EBSA cases and it seemed like there was only a small output however, Lucy Hillyard stressed it was a lengthy process. As the process had evolved thought was being given to how the link up could be improved between the various services and intervention could take place earlier, through listening carefully to schools about what was working well and what was not. Lucy Hillyard reported that the team was pleased with the impact achieved so far but were constantly asking questions regarding how things could be made better and improved for the children involved.

The Chair thanked Jane Seymour and Lucy Hillyard for the comprehensive report.

Gemma Piper referred to 5.12 of the report, which showed the evidence of impact. It was noted that these did not directly relate to the objectives listed in 5.3. Going forward Gemma Piper suggested it would be helpful to have the impact in line with objectives. It was also suggested that there should be a baseline provided at the beginning of each year that could be measured against.

Secondly, Gemma Piper raised a query regarding the third bullet point under 5.12, which stated that ‘attendance level rose to over 90% for 15% EBSA cases’. Gemma Piper queried if this was 15 percent of 25 children. Lucy Hillyard appreciated that it was a small number in terms of the cases they were looking at. Lucy Hillyard stated that it came back to Gemma Piper’s first question regarding objectives and a strategic approach. There had been a lot of learning hence the amount of questions being asked by the EBSA Forum. Lucy Hillyard agreed regarding the tracking. It was about how cases needed to be unpicked and then categorised and she commented that this had not been straight forward. Lucy Hillyard reported that the EBSA had noted this and were now thinking more strategically about what data was needed and what needed to be done to capture this. It was acknowledged that some of the processes in place needed refining. It was hoped that going forward there would be a better handle on how the cases were coming in and tracking them from the outset. This would help cases to be monitored more closely.

Gemma Piper referred to Lucy Hillyard’s response and felt that this was true of a lot of the projects set up. It was important to capture a status initially so that impact could be assessed. Although it was a relatively small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, it was a large amount of money considering the small number of children involved. Gemma Piper stated that it was important to know if the children were returning to school and avoiding alternative placements. Lucy Hillyard agreed and stated that another part of the problem was the lateness of referrals. Conversations with the Education Welfare Service needed to be taking place at the right point so that the EBSA process of risk could be considered earlier on. There was further work to do on this area.

Michelle Sancho commented that it was quite difficult to measure some of the areas being discussed. There had been a good increase in learning and engagement, and there had been a good level of impact seen in some quite complex cases, which was movement in the right direction towards improving attendance. The 90 percent attendance level measure had been chosen however, it was important to note that there were other children that had increased attendance but maybe not quite up to the 90 percent.

Catie Colston queried if the impact was greater if children involved in the project were younger. Lucy Hillyard reported that this was sometimes the case however, a case by case approach needed to be taken because it often depended on previous input. There had also been success with some cases where children were transitioning to secondary school and some very simple changes had increased attendance. Lucy Hillyard felt that the earlier services were linked up and the more the process was refined the quicker the process would be. Michelle Sancho agreed that a case by case approach needed to be taken however, the earlier a problem could be intervened the more likely a child would stay at school and difficulties could be prevented from getting worse.

The Chair invited the Forum to vote on the recommendation under 2.1 of the report. It was proposed and seconded that the recommendation be approved and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum agreed the ongoing funding of the ASD fund and EBSA fund/posts projects.