Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1. This paper seeks the approval of the Executive Lead Member for Children's services for the proposed response to the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) consultation on the National Commissioning Framework.

1.2. The publication on 16 November of the draft National Commissioning Framework details the new planning, commissioning and funding systems for the education and training of:

· Young people aged 16-19

· Those aged 19-25 for whom a learning difficulty assessment is in place

· Children and young people in youth custody aged 10-18

1.3. The suggested response to the consultation questions are attached to this paper as Appendix 1

2. Contextual information

2.1. From 1^st April 2010 the Learning and Skills Council is dissolved and Local authorities assume responsibility for commissioning education and training from post-16 providers on behalf of young people. The details of this transfer were covered in a report of the Director of Children's Services on the 8 October 2009

2.2. The details covering the commissioning arrangements have now been published and Hampshire County Council would like to respond to the national consultation on those arrangements.

3. Finance

3.1. The financial implications of the commissioning arrangements are covered in Sections 2 and 3 of the attached response.

4. Performance

4.1. Performance management issues relating to the commissioning arrangements are covered in Section 4 of the attached response.

5. Recommendation(s)

5.1. That the Executive Lead Member for Children's services approve the attached response to the draft National Commissioning Framework for submission to the DCSF on behalf of Hampshire County Council.

5.2. That the Executive lead member for Children's services approve the distribution of this consultation response to other interested parties as appropriate.

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Links to the Corporate Strategy

Other Significant Links

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

1. Equalities Impact Assessment:

1.1. There is no impact arising from the response to this consultation, although the commissioning framework itself does have the potential to impact adversely on some learners.

2. Impact on Crime and Disorder:

2.1. Engaging all young people in appropriate post-16 education or training is intended to have a positive effect on the reduction of youth crime and disorder but there is no impact arising this response to the consultation.

3. Climate Change:

a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint / energy consumption?

There is no impact from this response.

b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

There is no impact from this response.

DRAFT Response to National Commissioning Framework - Consultation Questions

Please provide answers to the questions below:

General/Section 1.1

1. Does the document make it clear the absolute essential processes, roles and responsibilities to ensure that education and training places for young people will be commissioned on time, to quality and within budget for 2011/12? If not, how could it be set out to make this clearer?

The document makes the processes and the role of the Local Authority clear. The role of the RPG is less clear and it appears to be expected to "endorse" or otherwise LA and SRG commissioning plans and to adjudicate in disputes. The mechanisms and legal basis under which it might carry out such roles are far from clear. The anticipated role of RPGs and the role of GOs and RDAs appear to suggest considerable duplication and layers of bureaucracy and the statutory challenge function sits correctly with GOs

2. Is the strategic framework for the National Commissioning Framework (NCF) clear?

The strategic framework for the NCF is clear.

3. Will the NCF provide the right process to support the delivery of our desired outcomes of increased participation, attainment, progression and value for money? If not, why not and how could it be improved?

Whilst it may work in future years, it will not deliver for 2010. The issues around funding have meant none of the process has been achieved to timetable this year and with an election and a spending review it will not be achieved next year. Provided the quantum of funding increases in line with increasing participation, the processes should operate effectively. If provision, especially for LDD learners is capped locally, regionally or nationally or if the funding for individual programmes reduces as learner numbers increase then this is unlikely to result in increasing participation in the medium term. Data needs to be able to indicate very local needs, at least at ward level, and in a sufficiently timely manner to allow responsive commissioning.

4. Does the process which the NCF sets out enable the delivery of the key principles behind it? If not, why not and what changes could be made so that it does?

The process is clear and workable but contains some unwieldy elements within it. The creation of quangos to allow GFE colleges to be "overseen" nationally rather than being subject to the same degree of local accountability and funding as 6thFC and school 6^th Forms is understandable but unhelpful in terms of efficiency and coherence. All post-16 providers have a statutory duty to co-operate in local Children's Trust arrangements and these trusts need to be 0-19. Answering to a body beyond this appears unnecessarily complex and unhelpful in terms of securing whole system focus on the needs of all children and young people in a local area. In addition, the inspection and reporting arrangements for post-16 need to be more coherent with those pre-16 and more transparent so that commissioning not only takes account of quality but can be clearly seen as doing so.

Section 1.2 - Key Contributors to the Commissioning Process

5. Are the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners clear? If not, why not and how could they be improved?

The role of the RPG appears extraneous and without the type of jurisdiction to support it as described in the NCF. There are sufficient bodies ensuring both compliance and coherence without creating a further layer of "policing!" The role of the YPLA is clearly described, although it does seem slight in comparison with the responsibilities which sit with the SFA and with LAs and how they will operate in regard to academies needs a little more detail. The responsibility which sits with providers to provide information, participate in a CAP of some sort and respond to the needs of all learners also needs spelling out.

Section 1.3 - Key Elements of the Commissioning Process

6. Are the elements of the commissioning process (and the responsibility for undertaking particular tasks) sufficiently clear?

The Common Application Process (CAP) is far from clear and clarity, as well as a sufficient statutory basis, around exactly how this will operate and what it will contribute to the process would be most helpful! The rest of the process is clearly outlined

7. Are all the right steps included, and are they in the right sequence? If not, what do you think should be different and why?

It appears pointless for an LA to review their 14-19 Plan and compile a local Commissioning Statement in July then receive a National Commissioning Statement in October which is intended to set the context for the local and regional Statements! If the local and regional Statements are expected to be prepared in response to the National Statement then common sense suggests the sequence of these will lead to additional work for LAs or an entirely redundant local Commissioning Statement!

Section 2 - Planning, Allocation and Funding

8. Is it clear how each of the processes below will operate within the NCF and are they workable and deliverable? If not, how could it be improved?

a. planning;

b. allocation; and

c. funding.

The additional layers of bureaucracy don't seem to be proportionate to any additional benefit and the timescales often means that information is being collated that has no ultimate influence on the commissioning decision

9. Will these processes enable us to deliver our objectives? If not, why not and how could they be improved to ensure we could achieve our objectives?

Ultimately, they are capable of doing so, but there will need to be a framework of support and monitoring to make it happen efficiently and at this stage there is no indication as to how this will be achieved. The level of overall investment of time and resource needs to be considered in the light of likely pressures on LA Budgets, and the need to show value for money. Above all, LA needs to have realistic timetables in line with established procurement practice, and once established, there should be no further incremental demands made for additional levels and types of detail not initially specified.

10. Where do you expect the main pressure points to be in the planning and allocation timetable? How might these pressures be alleviated?

The planning and allocation timetable has two key problems which are considered to be show stoppers. The first arises because of wider public sector funding - none of the milestones and deadlines have been met this year because of the issues around increasing participation and the impact on funding. Next year is the start of a new spending review period and a new government. The timetable therefore seems wholly unrealistic. The second arises because of the top down and bottom up approach to funding allocations, with the YPLA holding the budget. The activity required by the YPLA in March to consolidate regional commissioning plans and deliver a national commissioning plan which matches the budget has not been considered in the NCF in any detail and again creates a show stopper. What will the YPLA do if regional plans don't add up? How will they be trimmed to match funding? Local authorities will have a keen interest in the impact on distribution and priorities for learners in different regions and local authorities.

11. Are the criteria for resolving complaints reasonable? If not, why not?

The criteria are reasonable but the process is not since the RPG has no statutory authority to resolve disputes between an LA and one of its post-16 providers. The proper route would be through the corporate complaints procedure of the local authority and beyond this to the Ombudsman and ultimately, the Secretary of State.

12. Are the processes and timelines robust? If not where and how could they be improved?

No. the processes involve local authorities receiving three indicative funding allocations between October and December. The value of this is not clear. The timelines for consolidation and allocations as plans feed back up to the YPLA in March is considered unachievable (see Q10).

13. Are the underpinning principles for Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) statutory intervention reasonable and balanced? If not how could they be improved?

The YPLA is the lender of last resort. As such the proposals seems reasonable in recognising that ultimate responsibility. However the statutory role for local authorities to approve sixth form college borrowing run counter to that and YPLA guidance is required to make this work and ensure intervention is achievable.

Section 3 - Funding, Payments and Assurance

14. Is it clear how the payments and assurance processes will operate within the NCF and are they workable and deliverable? If not, how could it be improved?

No. the NCF sets out very little detail on this. However the approach to the Joint Audit Code of practice seeks to minimise audit and bureaucracy and if it can be agreed and delivered will be a valuable innovation.

It will be essential to work with authorities to agree with guidance in January on all aspects of payments and assurance to deliver on this area.

15. Is a system of in-year adjustment to allocations desirable and practical? If changes should be made what are they?

From a local authority perspective they will deliver more bureaucracy and work in reconciliation and audit. At this stage, it isn't clear if there will be sufficient funding in the system to ensure the process won't destabilise colleges with falling student numbers. The schools funding crisis partly arose from a period of falling number and lagged pupil numbers were seen as a way of delivering stability of funding.

Section 4 - Performance Management Framework

16. I Yes it clear how the Quality Assurance System will operate, and what the respective roles are for local authorities and the YPLA? If not, how could it be improved?

Whilst there are plans for the Framework for Excellence (FfE) to be consistently used across post-16 providers, the current variety of performance evidence means that direct comparison continues to be difficult and less than transparent.. Schools are expected to complete and online Self-Evaluation Form and this, alongside the new School Report Card, gives clear and transparent performance information on schools. The fact that much of the performance information relating to post-16 providers is not in the public domain, for example the Notices to Improve issued annually by the LSC, is not conducive to openness or fairness. The proposals indicate that the use of a common system, the FfE, will begin to address this but the proposals do not make it clear how or where this information will be shared. The role of the YPLA appears to be one of data analysis but the role of the LA is somewhat vague and needs to establish an "Improvement Partner" type role for the LA with colleges so that the LA not only knows about areas of local weakness but is in a position to support colleges in addressing them as it is expected to do with schools. It is not sufficient to know provision is poor or not to commission where that is the case, an effective performance management system should also provide challenge and support and that should be the role of the LA post 16 as it is pre 16.

17. Do you think Minimum Levels of Performance policy should be reviewed in the light of the new commissioning arrangements? If so, why and how?

The Minimum Levels of Performance Policy should be reviewed so that LAs have a function in identifying and intervening in areas of provider underperformance since they are responsible for the outcomes of the young people in their local area and so should be able to influence the quality of local provision as well as the nature of it. Institutions must self-evaluate as they do but, beyond not commissioning, the policy doesn't provide local accountability not the provision for support to improve.

Annex 1 - Commissioning Provision for Learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities

18. Is it clear how provision for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities will be commissioned within the NCF and is the process practical and deliverable? If not, how could it be improved?

No, it is far from clear. The draft NCF states, "The needs identified

through the learning difficulty assessment will be wholly funded by local authorities

including ALS and programme costs." However, there is still uncertainty about the relationship between S139a assessments/reports and the funding mechanism especially in relation to learners whose needs are identified as being beyond the ALS element of the national funding formula but as being able to be met from within local FE/training facilities. In particular there appears to be no established mechanism to bring S139a reports, and therefore any linked funding, to an end (in the same way that statements of special educational needs can be ceased when they are no longer necessary).

The learning and living for Work Framework is a good idea in principle but the current format is not fit for purpose. We made reference to this, in some detail, when we responded to the consultation on the draft guidance for S139a assessments.

19. Does the commissioning process for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities take account of the experience of learners and their parents/carers? If not, how should these needs be addressed?

No, because funding always follows the learner and this does not encourage the development of specialist local FE provision. Small specialist provisions are vulnerable to fluctuations in student numbers and need protecting so that they can recruit and maintain highly specialised staff. Such protection would encourage the development of more local provision and reduce the need for expensive ISP placements and so would be cost effective and allow more young people to continue their education within the local networks that have been supporting them .

Annex 3 - Commissioning 16-19 Apprenticeships

20. Is it clear how 16-19 Apprenticeships will be commissioned within the NCF and is the process practical and deliverable? If not, how could it be improved?

It is clear, but it is not consistent with the needs of local authorities or learners for commissioning and delivering the entitlement. For local authorities there are very real concerns that the national approach to commissioning and delivery with providers determining where delivery happens will impact adversely on the ability of a local authority to plan and deliver the entitlement for its learners. The commissioning will be developed according to the needs of the previous cohort but it is critical to have flexibility to use funding to address the needs of each current cohort.

NAS have the responsibility to increase the number of apprenticeships in an area but the tie in between NAS and the LA responsibility for stimulating economic growth and responding to economic needs should be more explicit. In addition, the kind of dual accountability through government departments as laid out in the document is very difficult to operate in practice .

Annex 4 - Commissioning Education and Training for Young Offenders in Youth Custody

21. Is it clear how youth custody education and training will operate within the NCF and is the process practical and deliverable? If not, how could it be improved?

This is one of the clearest parts of the report and the approach is practical and deliverable. However, there is no mention of IAG in this annex, Connexions time must be allocated to secure children's homes in order to facilitate relationship between host and home as it is in Hampshire.

The requirement to share information between home and host and various learning providers so that the appropriate learning can take place in the institution and planning for release can take place is most welcome.

22. How can this process be effectively integrated and aligned with wider mainstream planning and commissioning?

The critical element that isn't really addressed in this annex is the involvement of the home LA to ensure planning for release is taking place from the moment of entry. This is the critical ingredient that will break the cycle so more attention needs to be paid to it, for example establishing a time frame for the sharing of information ensuring that info is provided to the home LA a month before release for example and that the returning young person is allocated support from the first day of return. A strengthening of the host/home arrangements needs to be part of this annex.

Any additional comments

23. Do you have any further comments which could help the effectiveness and deliverability of the NCF, and ensure we achieve our outcomes?

The YPLA and DCSF need to engage nationally with partners to address the very real difficulties over the timetable given the likely impact of a general election and spending review on funding announcements which drive the commissioning process, and to consider how the complex steps required in February and March to deliver a national commissioning plan which matches available funding can be delivered.

The information you provide in your response will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations, which allow public access to information held by Government and its agencies. This does not necessarily mean that your response can be made available to the public as there are exemptions relating to information provided in confidence and information to which the Data Protection Act 1998 applies.

Please indicate clearly in your response if you want s to keep your response

confidential.

If you request confidentiality in your response you should note that neither this, nor an automatically-generated e-mail confidentiality statement, will necessarily exclude the public right of access.