Fran HarrisonPolicy and Performance Officer

Policy and Strategy TeamSheffield Children and Young People's

Directorate

The contribution of DIPs to improving outcomes for children and young people through Local Area

Agreements.

What key issue does your work address?

• Policy and Strategy Team: Key areas• Ensuring plans, policies and strategies fit with wider agenda

• Advice and support on key performance indicators

• Includes Local Area Agreement indicators

• DIPs work:• Pilot group

• Focus on Local Area Agreement

• Can DIPs contribute to improved outcomes?

Why is this an important priority for children

and families in your area?

• Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007

• Links to priorities already identified in other plans and strategies

How was it identified as a priority?

• Chosen by Local Strategic Partnership• Criteria:

• Contain indicators relating to areas where performance needs to improve

• Link to themes and ambitions currently in City Strategy

• Allow public to understand why chosen

• Reflect views of GO

How have you as a data and information professional gone about addressing it?

• Wider contribution re NI consultation• Issues re:

• interim NI framework

• lack of baseline data

• delayed indicators

• Knowledge and skills from other areas of work

How have you sought to put together the evidence required that can inform further actions?

• Review of documentation, eg DCLG, IDeA, local plans

• Interviews with colleagues in directorate / LA / LSP / other LAs

• Priorities events to assess partners’ views• Review of data that supported decisions

What were the outcomes of research and what impact has it had or do you expect it to have?

Examples:

Data templates: – Not consistent across LA– CYPD best presented

– Good practice to publish for other non-LAA indicators

– Consistent information– Credibility

Definition:

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

Sheffield (num.) 134Sheffield (denom.) 219Sheffield (%) 60.7% 63.9% 64.2% 71.1% 61.2%Met AuthoritiesStatistical Neighbours 63.7% 65.6% 67.5% 65.1%Core CitiesNational 63.8% 62.9% 63.7% 65.2%New LAA target (num.) 132 138 144New LAA target (denom.) 197 197 197New LAA target (%) 66.8% 69.9% 73.0%

Target Rationale

Sheffield performance forecast to be approximately 69% if the trend from 03/04 to Dec 07/08 continues to 10/11.National performance forecast to be approximately 70% if the trend from 03/04 to Dec 07/08 continues to 10/11.

Technical Notes

Data source: DCSF - SSDA903

Statistical neighbours performance forecast to be approximately 71.0% if the trend from 03/04 to Dec 07/08 continues to 10/11.

NI 63 - Stability of placements of looked after children: length of placement

Numerator: the percentage of looked after children aged under 16 at 31 March who had been looked after continuously for at least

Denominator: all children aged under 16 on 31 March of the year of measurement who had been looked after for 2.5 years or more on 31 March of the year of measurement. Exclude children who had been looked after at any time during the 2.5 year period under an agreed series of short-term placements.

Target based on current performance (Dec 07). This will give a change of +3.10% each year until 2011 (73.0% target subtract 63.7% and divided by the three annual periods between 08/09 and 10/11).

NI 63 - Stability of placements of looked after children: length of placement

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

YearSheffield (%) Statistical Neighbours Core CitiesNational New LAA target (%) Linear (Sheffield (%))

Percentages as numbers:– Percentages not necessarily relevant– Championed by new administration

– Relevant– Accessible – More obvious impact of targets– Good practice for other work

Realistic targets:– Consider what makes up the groups– Interim targets may not be uniform– Consider impact of other targets

– NI 117: vulnerable groups EETs targets incorporated

– Profiling interim targets for action– NI 76: informed by statutory targets

Benchmark data:– Comparison across various benchmarks remains– Know other LAs’ priorities– Intelligence

– Potential for LAA benchmark groups– Best practice from non-traditional areas– Impact of other LAs’ priorities on ours (especially

non-LAA)

Table 1: Examples of children’s NIs prioritised by Sheffield

Ref Indicator Number of benchmark authorities prioritising:

LAs Y&H Core Cities

Met Auths

Stat N/bours

NI 117 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training (NEET)

115/150 15/15 8/8 32/36 8/10

NI 112 Under 18 conception rate 106/150 13/15 7/8 28/36 9/10

NI 56 Obesity among primary school age children in Year 6

99/150 9/15 6/8 26/36 6/10

NI 110 Young people's participation in positive activities (local target so not included in numbers)

77/150 9/15 0/8 15/36 4/10

Table 2: Examples of children’s NIs not prioritised by Sheffield

Ref Indicator Number of benchmark authorities prioritising:

LAs Y&H Core Cities

Met Auths

Stat N/bours

YJB

NI 19 Rate of re-offending by young offenders

49/150 3/15 3/8 12/36 2/10 4/8*

NI 51 Effectiveness of child and adolescent mental health (CAMHs) services

43/150 2/15 0/8 5/36 1/10

NI 115 Substance misuse by young people

36/150 8/15 2/15 11/36 3/10

NI 116 Proportion of children in poverty

45/150 5/15 4/8 17/36 2/10

* This does not include the Welsh authorities in this benchmark group

Wider NI issues– LAA decisions based on interim framework– Untested

– Log of queries– Circulate responses– Ensure calculated accurately– Encourage good practice via Audit Commission– School cross-tab

Nu

rser

ies

Mai

nta

ined

Pri

mar

ies

Mid

dle

Sch

oo

ls

Mai

nta

ined

Sec

on

dar

ies

Mai

nta

ined

Sp

ecia

ls

No

n-m

ain

tain

ed S

pec

ials

Aca

dem

ies

PR

Us

Yo

un

g O

ffen

der

s in

stit

uti

on

s

Ind

epen

den

t S

cho

ols

Ho

me

Sch

oo

led

Cit

y T

ech

no

log

y C

oll

eges

Six

th F

orm

Co

lleg

es

Fu

rth

er E

du

cati

on

In

stit

uti

on

s

Ter

tiar

y C

oll

eges

Hig

her

Ed

uca

tio

n I

nst

itu

tio

ns

Wo

rk B

ased

Lea

rnin

g P

rovi

der

s

Notes

NI 73Achievement at Level 4 or above in both English & Maths at Key Stage 2

Schools with more than 10 pupils in the end of KS2 cohort

NI 75Achievement of 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent including English & Maths

NI 76Reduction in number of schools where fewer than 65% of pupils achieve Level 4 or above in both English & Maths at KS2

Schools with more than 10 pupils in the end of KS2 cohort

NI 78

Reduction in number of schools where fewer than 30% of pupils achieve 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE & equivalent includings GCSEs in English & Maths

NI 84Achievement of 2 or more A*-C grades in Science GCSEs or equivalent

NI 85Post-16 participation in physcial sciences (A Level Physics, Chemistry & Maths)

NI 86Secondary schools judged as having good or outstanding standards of behaviour

NI 87 Secondary school persistent absence rate

NI 88Percentage of schools providing access to extended services

Indicator DescriptionNI Ref

School/Insitution Types Included in Calculation

What changes have ensued?

• Early days to see impact of LAA• Putting in the foundations as examples• Embed and clarify wider NI set• Use for other work

How have children and families benefited?

• Commitment to improvement• Improved priorities will impact over time• More robust focus on key areas

Reflections:• Be creative – where appropriate!• Can you use in other areas of work?• LAA / NIS relationship, ie map good practice

onto other indicators• Speak to people in other LAs• Don’t lose sight of what you’re trying to

achieve