REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE CHILDREN’S EXECUTIVE
CONTENTS
| Details | Page No. |
1. | FOREWORD | 3 |
2. | INTRODUCTION | 3 |
3. | SUMMARY | 4 |
4. | STATISTICS | 6 |
5. | CONCLUSION | 17 |
REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF
THE CHILDREN’S EXECUTIVE
1. FOREWORD:
This Report marks the very significant steps that have been taken in implementing the recommendations of Dr K. Bull's Report into Children with Social Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD) published in December 2002. It would be easy to underestimate the complexity of the task of implementing the agreed recommendations within tightly constrained budgets. Important objectives have already been achieved within a framework of evidence and principle set out in the Bull Report.
The Corporate Parent is grateful to all those who have contributed to the changes and improvements that have taken place as a result of implementing the recommendations. There are many professionals, parents, carers and young people who deserve appreciation for their part in the achievements so far. Particular mention should be made of the work of officers of the Children's Executive, which was formed as a result of one of the recommendations. Their extensive knowledge and experience has been invaluable in providing workable solutions to meet the Bull recommendations.
Although much has been achieved, there can never be complacency and there is always more to do. The recently published report of Andrew Williamson's Inquiry into Child Protection in Jersey will further inform our understanding of how to meet the needs of children with SEBD in taking forward the excellent review undertaken by Dr Bull. The debate about the causes of SEBD and possible remedies to alleviate the consequences is ongoing and hugely significant for all vulnerable children in our island.
We commend the achievements so far and look forward to further advances in meeting the needs of these vulnerable children.
Senator Wendy Kinnard
Senator Mike Vibert
Senator James Perchard
2. INTRODUCTION:
In 2002 Dr. Kathie Bull was commissioned by the Committees for Education, Sport and Culture; Health and Social Services and Home Affairs to inspect and report on provision for young people experiencing social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) in Jersey. Dr. Bull’s report published in December 2002 (RPT1) highlighted atypical problems in Jersey and systemic deficiencies within and across services. Recommendations were made in respect of:
- Strategic partnership and planning
- The reconfiguration of existing services
- Developments necessary to enhance provision
- The scrutiny of provision
Dr Bull was then asked to develop this work, through the first six months of 2003, by pulling together fifteen ‘Action Groups’ (consisting of over 40 senior staff and managers from across the range of Services involved in the original review) who would identify ‘the options for change under each recommendation’. This work led to the publication of an ‘Outcome of Action Groups Deliberations’ report in June 2003 (RPT2 – Parts 1-4).
A ‘Final Report’ was then developed and published in December 2003 (RPT3) that defined key roles; determined schedules for disaggregation of provisions and services; considered linking arrangements and set out formats for service level agreements. This last report was developed by the ‘Children’s Executive’ designate under the chairmanship of Dr Bull.
The creation of this latter group was a key recommendation of the original report and was designed to be a monitoring body, comprising of managers from the commissioning departments together with a manager from the Probation and After-Care Service.
In February 2004 the Children’s Executive reviewed the final report’s recommendations in light of the requirements of the ongoing Fundamental Spending Review (initiated by the Finance & Economics Committee during 2002) for all department’s to ‘list, cost and prioritise services’. It was clear that the full range of developments proposed was not going to be possible at that time owing to financial constraints and a subsequent, amended, ‘Report of the Children’s Executive – Meeting the Needs of SEBD Children in Jersey’ was finally presented to a meeting of the three sponsoring Committees held on March 12th 2004 (RPT4). This report was further endorsed by each of the individual Committees in turn during April – June 2004. The following vision statement was agreed as part of this process:
“The three Committees of Health and Social Services, Home Affairs and Education , Sport and Culture together with the Probation Board will work in partnership and be jointly accountable for the development of effective and efficient support and provision for SEBD children in Jersey. “
This vision has been at the heart of all work undertaken since and has led to significant developments in the way that services have been configured. Co-operation at a senior management level has seen the development of the Children’s Executive, which has linked with the Chief Officers and Politicians, to provide a strategic direction for services for children with SEBD. A feature of this strategy has been the willingness of all involved in working with this challenging group of young people to incorporate a multi agency approach and develop work across traditional departmental boundaries.
The move to Ministerial Government, and the development by the Council of Ministers of the ‘Strategic Plan 2006-2011’, places a requirement on the Health & Social Services, Home Affairs and Education Sport & Culture Departments to review the effectiveness of those services provided (strategic aim 3.2.10).
The following two sections give a summary of progress to date, together with statistical analysis of progress within specific areas.
3. SUMMARY
In all, the original report highlighted 50 specific recommendations across both individual agencies as well as several ‘cross agency’ initiatives (listed below). The ‘second phase’ of the review process, involving the work of the many Action Groups, looked at each and every one of these recommendations and sought to identify where recommendations may not be practical or timely; or where a ‘single strand agency’ may be better placed to move the issue forward owing to complexities of operation or funding issues.
Analysis of Report Recommendations:
Section | Total No. Recs. | No. Actioned & Completed By CE | No. Actioned by Single Strand | Work in Progress by CE | Number Not able to Action |
STRATEGIC PLANNING | 8 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1 |
WORKING IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE | 9 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
CHILDREN’S SERVICE | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
CAMHS | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
EDUCATION | 15 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 0 |
CROSS AGENCY | 12 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
TOTAL | 50 | 16 | 11 | 19 | 4 |
Of the sixteen recommendations actioned and completed to date by the Children’s Executive the most notable achievements have included:
17.1.1 The establishment of a Children’s Executive, overseen by the Corporate Parent made up of Ministers and Chief Officers of the three sponsoring departments and the Probation Service.
17.1.2 The appointment of a Co-ordinator of Services to oversee and develop the work under the CE.
17.2.1 A new Secure Facility designed, planned and built within budget and on time on the old ‘Les Chenes’ site. The old Les Chenes building refurbished and re- designated as a new eight bedded Intensive Support Unit.
17.2.10 The transfer of the operation of Heathfield and La Preference Children’s Homes from the Children’s Service to the Children’s Executive under a single management structure alongside the Greenfield’s campus.
17.2.18 The development of Multi Agency Support Teams within all four of the maintained sector secondary schools – albeit with significant difficulties in adding Social Workers to these teams due to recruitment issues.
17.2.25 Newly refurbished buildings on the new ‘Greenfields’ campus to house the Alternative Curriculum and appropriate provision developed on the same site for any Looked After Children excluded from school.
17.3.2 The establishment of the Youth Action Team, bringing together in one team professionals from Police, Probation, CAMHS and Social Work.
17.3.6 The development of key liaison posts within Health, CAMHS and Education for Looked After Children.
17.4.1 The opening of The Bridge as an Integrated Family Centre on the old St Mark’s School site; as a base for YAT and many other ‘child and family’ centred services.
A further eleven recommendations were taken back to ‘single strand’ agencies and subjected to further discussion and consideration and/or were developed as single agency initiatives. The most prominent among these was:
17.2.2 A recommendation to establish a Tariff of offending behaviour which did not ultimately find favour with the Courts. The Probation Service (alongside the newly established YAT) undertook to monitor sentencing trends locally and in the UK and to liaise further with the Courts in the future, should the need arise.
17.2.11 A recommendation to establish a professional foster parenting programme was widely supported ‘in principle’ but the costings associated with the scheme could not be found when prioritised against other report requirements. H&SS was asked to take this issue back and to seek funding from within its own growth programme. Subsequent ‘growth bids’ were successful in securing a substantial three year programme of investment from 2006 – 2008.
17.2.26 Recommendations related to the development and strengthening of the
17.2.27 Education Welfare Service were taken back by ESC and were funded and
17.2.28 developed from within their established budget allocation.
Only four recommendations were either not concluded at that time or were effectively altered through the reviewing process, and those for the following reasons:
17.1.8 A recommendation for an External Independent Review Group was effectively superseded by the introduction (under Ministerial Government) of the Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel.
17.4.3 A recommendation around the use of capital release as a result of the re- configuration of services to be channelled back into new developments was not possible at the time owing to established states accounting policies. The recent development of a states wide Property Holdings Department may lead to further discussions in the near future.
17.2.7(ii) A recommendation for interim arrangements for education and/or training of all young people detained in the YOI (and Woman’s Wing) was developed and costed but was eventually postponed as a result of financial constraints and has subsequently been picked up as a priority within the Prison’s Performance Improvement Plan. In the interim a senior teacher was seconded from ESC to Home Affairs to develop educational programmes at the Prison.
17.2.7(iii) A recommendation for a review of the situation whereby young woman have no separate and clearly identifiable YOI provision was looked at by an Action Group and has equally been picked up within the recent introduction of the Prison’s Performance Improvement Plan.
Work continues within the Children’s Executive on the remaining nineteen recommendations, alongside any new initiatives that have been brought forward since. The development of a comprehensive Five Year Strategic Plan is the next priority for the CE and this will effectively bring to a conclusion the original report by satisfying the six remaining ‘strategic planning’ recommendations as well as highlighting any future action still required in concluding any of the other remaining recommendations.
4. STATISTICS
In setting out ‘The States of Jersey Perspective’ (RPT1 - Part 3) the original report drew on statistical evidence gathered from a variety of sources. Although there was a considerable ‘volume’ of data it was not always easy to make accurate comparisons with similar UK data and, in certain areas, there was simply no locally comparative data available.
Much work has been done, since that report, to develop appropriate ‘data sets’ that can be collated and analysed to establish local trends. The following are the most appropriate in each key area of work:
4(i) CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The following data attempts to provide an overview of the existing work carried out by the Island’s agencies in the Criminal Justice system. It also provides a context in relation to the scale of youth offending generally.
Youth Offenders by Age and Total Population
10 – 13 year olds
10 – 13 yr | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
Population | 4137 | 4054 | 3983 | 3995 |
Offenders | 101 | 43 | 59 | 40 |
% | 2.44 | 1.06 | 1.48 | 1.00 |
14 – 17 year olds
14 - 17 yr | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
Population | 3960 | 4144 | 4168 | 4153 |
Offenders | 252 | 212 | 164 | 204 |
% | 6.36 | 5.12 | 3.93 | 4.91 |
These charts reveal that despite often receiving high media attention, youth crime has remained relatively stable over a number of years with only 1% of 10-13 year olds coming to Police attention. The corresponding figure for 14-17 year olds has reduced slightly since 2004.
Data from the Annual Report of the States of Jersey Police shows that, in 2004, the total number of offenders in Jersey consisted of 34% of the under 18 age group. Since then the proportion of individual offenders who are aged under 18 has stabilised at about 24%. In amongst this population there will be a number of repeat offenders who will need to be targeted by agencies in order to reduce their risk of re-offending.
Social Enquiry Reports Prepared for under 18 year olds
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
Youth | 80 | 86 | 141 | 88 | 129 | 111 | 105 | 83 | 105 |
Adult | 398 | 510 | 514 | 423 | 470 | 438 | 397 | 384 | 405 |
Total | 478 | 596 | 655 | 511 | 599 | 549 | 502 | 467 | 510 |
% | 16.74 | 14.43 | 21.53 | 17.22 | 21.54 | 20.22 | 20.92 | 17.77 | 20.59 |
Social Enquiry Reports by Offences
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
Breaches/Defaults | | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
Breaking/ Entry / Larceny | 18 | 30 | 30 | 28 | 32 | 33 | 39 | 22 | 24 |
Drugs Offences | 8 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
Fraud and Forgery | | 2 | 1 | 2 | | | | 1 | 1 |
Licensing offences | 2 | 2 | 8 | | | | | 3 | 1 |
Malicious Damage/ Arson | 12 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
Motoring | 12 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 |
Other Offences | 2 | | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | | |
Other Offences (Public Order) | 4 | 6 | 19 | 2 | 14 | 14 | 21 | 17 | 23 |
Receiving/Handling | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
Robbery/Menaces | | | | | | | 1 | 4 | |
Sexual Offences | | 2 | 2 | | 1 | 1 | | | |
Taking and Driving Away | 4 | 7 | 22 | 10 | 29 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 7 |
Violent Offences | 14 | 14 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 28 | 14 | 15 | 21 |
Social Enquiry Reports are usually prepared when the Court is taking a particularly serious view of a case. The number of reports requested by the courts is largely consistent with previous years. The pattern of offences fluctuates slightly every year although in several categories of offence there are few significant differences. There have been slight increases in reports ordered for violent and public order offences whilst reports ordered for breaking and entering offences have reduced from the 2005 figure.
This graph depicts the reasons considered by the Probation Officer to lie behind a young person’s offending behaviour. It is of note that alcohol misuse is the most common contributory factor. This has been a consistent theme for a number of years and is likely to account for a high proportion of SERS on violent and public order offences. In order to try to address this problem all young offenders on Probation Orders have to attend at least one substance misuse education appointment with the Court Liaison Officer, a shared post between the Probation Service and the Alcohol and Drug Service. Additionally the Youth Action Team has introduced a “Sex, Drugs and Alcohol” Programme which has been well received.
Other common problems involve difficulties with families, peers and schools. A Family Problem Solving Programme exists to help young people and their families to resolve areas using effective methods. It is intended that this work will be enhanced by YAT’s objective to work more closely with the Parenting Service. The introduction of the MAST service in schools, together with other initiatives developed by Education, Sport and Culture, is hoped to resolve many of these difficulties. The Probation Service’s Core Programme adopts a problem solving approach that prepares young people for challenging situations and provides opportunities for victim focussed work through the Restorative Justice Officer together with programmes such as Teen Talk, this type of approach is intended to equip young people with skills to avoid re-offending.
Throughout 2008 it will be vital to pay attention to these contributory factors and for YAT to develop innovative methods of meeting need.
Social Enquiry Reports Sentencing
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
Bind over all | 30 | 19 | 25 |
Community Service | 14 | 16 | 17 |
Fine | 4 | 1 | 7 |
Other | 3 | 6 | 7 |
Prison | 6 | 4 | 11 |
Probation | 48 | 37 | 38 |
The proportion of non custodial sentences remains high showing general confidence in the work of the Probation service and YAT. It was noted that 56 young people appeared in Court in 2007 without receiving any previous sanction. None of these young people received custodial sentences and there may have been opportunities to divert them from Court by dealing with them at Parish Hall level. However, an examination of these cases revealed that over a quarter were for motoring offences where it is probable that the Centenier was unable to exercise any discretion due to guidelines from the Attorney General. Another quarter of this number involved offences of violence that it is likely were deemed too serious to be dealt with appropriately at Parish Hall level. It will remain important to monitor and analyse these figures in order to ensure that attempts to divert young people from the formal criminal justice system wherever possible are working efficiently.
Youth Custodial Sentences
| 15yrs | 16yrs | 17yrs | Total |
1998 | 6 | 14 | 15 | 35 |
1999 | 2 | 13 | 34 | 49 |
2000 | 2 | 3 | 34 | 17 |
2001 | 0 | 7 | 13 | 20 |
2002 | 7 | 4 | 15 | 26 |
2003 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 |
2004 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 15 |
2005 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
2006 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
2007 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 |
This significant graph depicts a substantial reduction in youth detention sentencing from the late 1990’s and could be partially attributed to the courts’ confidence in the manner that non custodial penalties are administered. It is perhaps noteworthy that the reduction in custodial sentencing has coincided with the funding provided by the Building a Safer Society Strategy that has created posts such as the Court Liaison Officer and the Restorative Justice Officer. Additionally the YAT has provided a multi agency service to the court, complementing the Probation Service’s existing court work and introducing bail support packages which offers effective community based monitoring as an alternative to a custodial remand.
4(ii) CHILDREN’S SERVICE
The key group identified by the original report within Children’s Service was the ‘Looked After’ population and the following two graphs show how the total number of children supported (by ‘age’ and ‘placement type’) have reduced in number since the introduction of initiatives post the ‘Kathy Bull Report’ (marked as *KBR on the charts).
These changes were not solely as a result of the report and, indeed, many of them had been initiated a long time prior to the report being commissioned – the introduction of a new Children’s Law is a good example of this.
The other key deficiency that was highlighted in the original report was the lack of any comparison against the Performance Assessment Framework Indicators (PAF) published annually in the UK. Since then, much work has been undertaken to establish appropriate local measures.
The following table sets out a range of indicators that are either currently in use or about to be introduced. It should be noted that many still rely on manual collation of data and high level of inter-agency co-operation.
| Measure Description | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
2006 | National Target 2004/05 |
1 | PAF CF/A1 - Percentage of children who have 3 placements or more in one year | 5.46% | 7.56% | 8.69% |
3.65% | <16% |
2 | PAF CF/A2 – Percentage of children leaving care (16yrs +) with at least 1 GCSE at grade A*-G or a GNVQ | New Indicator for 2007/08 |
>44% |
3 | PAF CF/A3 - Percentage of child protection re-registrations during the year | 19.71% | 6.66% | 5.55% |
13.84% | 10 - 15% |
4 | PAF CF/B7 - Percentage of children looked after by friends and family or in foster placement or placed for adoption | 58.25% | 56.25% | 52.08% | 45.07% | 85 - 90% |
5 | PAF CF/C20 - Percentage of child protection cases which should have been reviewed during the year that were reviewed | 90% | 86% | 93% | 97% | >97% |
6 | PAF CF/C21 – Percentage of children on the Child Protection Register for longer than 2 years | 13.33% | 6.55% | 2.70% | 6.45% | 0 - 10% |
7 | PAF CF/C22 – Percentage of children in care at 31March under 10yrs old who are in foster placements or placed for adoption. | New Indicator for 2006/07 | 70% | >97% |
8 | PAF CF/C23 – Percentage of children in care who are adopted during year. | New Indicator for 2006/07 | 9.09% | >8% |
9 | PAF CF/C24 – Percentage of ‘looked after’ children absent from school for at least 25days (for whatever reason). | New Indicator for 2007/08 | 0 – 5% |
An analysis of the above table shows that Jersey actually performs extremely well in the area of ‘placement stability’ (CF/A1) although the number of Looked After children supported in ‘family placements’ (CF/B7) is very poor at almost half of the equivalent UK level and this is also evident in the position for ‘under 10’s’ (CF/C22), although not to the same degree.
It is important to stress that recommendation 17.2.11 recognised this emerging picture and this has been subsequently acknowledged in the significant programme of investment that Health & Social Services has put in place to develop Fostering and Adoption Services through 2006 – 2008. An early indication of the success of this programme can be seen in the first year figures for PAF CF/C23 which shows that local adoptions from care is actually above even the very best UK levels.
The three child protection indicators (CF/A3, CF/C20 & CF/C21) show consistent performance at least at, or better than, UK best practice and this in spite of the fact that the relatively low numbers on the register locally can be adversely affected by one family, with multiple siblings, being registered at any one time.
There are a couple of ‘joint’ indicators that are still being researched between the Children’s Service and Education to establish whether they are likely to be appropriate to the local situation or whether some alternatives should be pursued. Overall, however, the picture is very positive.
4(iii) CAMHS
Within the original report there was no specific data related to the SEBD population although there were general figures for the total CAMH service. Alongside this CAMHS have now introduced a new clinical database which will assist in providing statistical returns in the future. The data sets are currently being reviewed for the 2 posts which have been developed in line with the Bull recommendations, which were the Clinical Psychologist for looked after children and the Mental Health Nurse Specialist within YAT.
Both posts have a large consultation component and have some involvement with a significant number of young people who are receiving help from the respective areas.
In 2007 the Clinical Psychologist had involvement, in some capacity, with almost all of the young people in residential care, including those who only had brief stays. She has worked directly with 28 young people in care and 13 foster or adoptive families.
Currently there are no appropriate UK performance indicators to provide comparison with either the specific SEBD posts or for CAMHS generally.
The Kathy Bull report recommended a specialist psychiatric service (17.2.12) for the SEBD population which would be led by a new Consultant Psychiatrist post. Unfortunately the funding was not available at the time. Subsequently an external review of CAMHS by the children's mental health charity, Young Minds, also supported this recommendation. They stated that one of the "Three key risks to the effective delivery of CAMHS in Jersey” was "The isolation of a single consultant psychiatrist whose clinical and managerial burdens are not sustainable over the longer period". In 2007 the Consultant Child Psychiatrist saw 106
new cases (Royal College of Psychiatry recommendation would be 40). She saw 385 children and their families over the year some for single appointments but others for more intensive therapy.
4(iv) EDUCATION
Vulnerable Children
Advances and improvements have been made in educational support for vulnerable children on the Island, led by the Senior Educational Psychologist: Vulnerable Children. Significant changes have been made to the way children with SEBD problems are supported and managed in the primary phase. There has been an increased emphasis on co-working in mainstream schools and the provision of flexible arrangements for intensive inputs at St James School prior to re-inclusion to mainstream settings. A similar operational model is being implemented in d’Hautree House and in mainstream secondary schools. Refinements are also being made with the links between d’Hautree House, the Alternative Curriculum at the Oakside Centre and the Greenfield Secure Unit.
The Senior Educational Psychologist: Vulnerable Children is also contributing to the development of MAST (multi-agency support team) processes in all four State’s Secondary Schools. In addition input is being given to the review of YAT (Youth Action Team).
A multi-agency Operational Management Group has been set up with the aim of making more effective and prompt responses to meeting the needs of Vulnerable Children. This initiative links well with the advances also being made regarding Looked After Children in the areas of assessment when coming into care; links with schools to support their endeavours, particularly in the areas of pastoral and curriculum development; and the development of joint working with those students who’s complexity of need requires totally individualised programmes of teaching and learning. These individualised learning programmes are designed in conjunction with the input of other services to provide overall multi-agency support.
Suspensions from school
Since the original data was provided, the format of data collected regarding suspensions from school has been revised to provide better support for identification of those students who are most vulnerable to suspension, as well as to facilitate discussions with schools about interventions to reduce suspensions.
In order to provide comparison with previous data, the average suspension rate per pupil in the maintained secondary schools has been calculated.
Academic year | Average suspension rate per student |
1999 - 2000 | 0.82% |
2006 -2007 | 0.79% |
While this represents a reduction, we continue to work to reduce the need for suspensions. The Educational Psychologist: Vulnerable Children has met with the Heads of each school to discuss their figures and contributory factors. He is working with Behaviour Managers from the schools to develop interventions-based policy and practice to reduce the need for suspensions. This involves the analysis of factors associated with student suspensions and more effective use of readmission meetings, including consideration of the use of restorative justice principles.
Since 2005 we have collected data about those students who incur repeat suspensions, as these students are particularly vulnerable to educational failure and future social exclusion.
Academic year | Students suspended more than once |
2005 -2006 | 0.25% |
2006 -2007 | 0.23% |
We are working to increase pro-active multi-agency support for these most vulnerable students, to help with their life circumstances and help them to engage more constructively with school life.
If a Looked After Child is suspended from school, they are educated at the Alternative Curriculum, in liaison with Residential Care staff.
NB There is no permanent exclusion in Jersey. Therefore the figures reported here refer only to ‘fixed-term’ exclusions. To be meaningful, comparison with UK figures would need to be with the total of UK exclusions, both fixed term and permanent.
Attendance
A strategic plan of action has been put in to place to combat both internal truancy and unauthorised absence. The Education Welfare Service increased to three staff. Attendance Officers were appointed to the four 11-16 schools. This also allowed the service to forge stronger links with Children’s Services and also to provide support for vulnerable children at transition between primary and secondary school.
Electronic registration has been installed in all of the schools and we now have much more reliable statistics and the ability to track lesson attendance. Education welfare staff are therefore able to detect truancy more easily and work with young people preventatively in schools.
The service is now aware of any child or young person whose attendance is a cause for concern and works actively with them and their family. The MAST team in secondary schools has enabled the Attendance Officer to work closely with the other members of the team in order to support students with their attendance.
Overall attendance rate
| 2004 / 2005 | 2005 / 2006 | 2006 / 2007 |
Primary schools | 95.6% | 95.91% | 95.5% |
Secondary Schools | 93.0% | 92.76% | 93.1% |
Historically data was collected relating to the 11 -16 schools. More recently information is collected about all secondary schools.
11 – 16 Schools Attendance Returns
Academic year | No. of pupils | No of Authorised Absences** | % Authorised Absences** | No. of Unauthorised Absences | % Unauthorised Absence | Total % Attendance |
2000/2001 | 2762 | 64416 | 6.45 | 22567 | 2.26 | 91.29 |
2006/2007 | 2998 | 60328 | 6.69 | 13509 | 1.51 | 91.79 |
The Education Welfare Service works with all schools and has collected data on this basis since the academic year of 2003/2004. Analysis of this data shows a significant decrease in unauthorised absence.
All Secondary Schools
Academic Year | No. of pupils | No of Authorised Absences** | % Authorised Absences** | No. of Unauthorised Absences | % Unauthorised Absence | Total % Attendance |
2003/2004 | 5152 | 80521 | 5.10 | 38123 | 2.42 | 92.48 |
2006/2007 | 5194 | 92132 | 5.90 | 15481 | 0.99 | 93.11 |
** Authorised absence due to holiday requests during term time continues to impact on pupil attendance. The Education Welfare Service has worked with travel agents who provide discounts to families booking holidays during school holidays. The service has endeavoured to advise parents of the difficulties such absences can cause.
Year 11 Examination results of Looked After Children
Student | Total number of GCSE* grades | Number of GCSE grades C & above | Number of GCSE grades D & below | Other qualifications gained | Notes |
2003.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | |
2003.2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | VRQ** | |
2003.3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | | |
2004.1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | | |
2004.2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ELQ*** | |
2004.3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | | |
2004.4 | 7 | 4 | 3 | | |
2004.5 | | | | | Not entered (UK placement) |
2004.6 | | | | | Not entered (Mont a L’Abbe) |
2004.7 | | | | | Not entered (Mont a L’Abbe) |
2005.1 | 7 | 5 | 2 | | |
2005.2 | 7 | 1 | 6 | | |
2005.3 | 7 | 5 | 2 | | |
2005.4 | 7 | 3 | 4 | | |
2006.1 | 7 | 1 | 6 | | |
2006.2 | | | | | Not entered |
2006.3 | 7 | 6 | 1 | | |
2006.4 | 8 | 0 | 8 | VRQ | |
2006.5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | | |
2006.6 | 7 | 4 | 3 | | |
2007.1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | | |
2007.2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | ELQ1,2,2,3 | |
2007.3 | | | | | Not entered |
2007.4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | | |
2007.5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | | |
2007.6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | |
2007.7 | 5 | 2 | 3 | | |
2007.8 | 7 | 0 | 7 | | |
2007.9 | 10 | 9 | 1 | VRQ | |
2007.10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | (D’Hautre House) |
* General Certificate of School Education ** Vocationally Related Qualification
*** Equivalent or Lower Qualification
Looked After Children are supported to study appropriate courses at Key Stage 4. GCSE courses are not suitable for all students. Where appropriate, students study for vocationally related qualifications or equivalent or lower qualifications instead. In some cases, externally examined courses are not appropriate for specific students, due to the severity and/or complexity of their individual special needs.
5. CONCLUSION
It is clear from the information and statistics gathered that considerable process has been made since the inception of the Children’s Executive. Over 50% of the original recommendations of the Kathy Bull Report have been actioned and completed, either by the Children’s Executive or by the relevant ‘single strand’ department directly responsible. Of the remaining recommendations a further 40% are ‘works in progress’ at this time and only 4 of the original 50 recommendations could not be actioned in the way that was originally outlined.
There have been some difficulties in making the ‘structure’ of the combined services work in a practical day to day sense and it is appropriate and opportune that the recently delivered Andrew Williamson Report will be the catalyst for further development in this area.
The Children’s Executive is committed to taking note of all the recommendations made and to working with all partner agencies to implement those changes.
Livelink ® Version 9.2.0, Copyright © 1995-2003 Open Text Inc. All rights reserved. |
| | |
gov.je