Development of the National Indicator Set and Tellus Survey Rob Sinclair Alison Thompson (DCSF) Rob – the balance of the NIS across the 5 outcomes

NIS Development: Aims and Timescale Aim to develop the second version of the NIS to: Reflect emerging policy priorities for next spending period Address gaps in the current NIS Consider whether balance of NIs across ECM outcomes and DSOs is right Incorporate better data that has since become available Timing: Uncertain, as SR timing not confirmed but this project runs from late ’08 to late summer ’09 Currently: Producing initial thinking on ‘NI theory’, gaps and balance – share some of this in following slides Gathering feedback from policy and will then circulate note to ADCS standards, performance and inspection cttee

Purpose of NIS NIS: Set of indicators central Govt can use to performance manage local authorities But two alternative methods: Use NIS to drive change, including what central Govt wants local areas to focus on; or Use NIS to measure as comprehensively as possible the performance of the system in delivering good outcomes for children, young people and families Unclear which currently being followed Joined up Children’s Services How should the NIS fit with other perf mgmt frameworks?

Processes vs Outcomes Guidance from HMT/CLG: outcomes focus But only gives you part of picture Friedman: both outcomes and process Shows how and whether outcomes achieved Measurement issue: Outcomes difficult to measure and subject to inaccuracy

Balance of NIs? Often Claimed: But: Cross-cutting indicators: DCSF ‘owned’ NIs are unbalanced across the ECM outcomes, towards attainment But: If NIs owned by other Depts are included, NIS looks more balanced DCSF NIs DCSF + OGD NIs Cross-cutting indicators: We currently only allow NIs to appear under one outcome If allow multiple times, set more balanced

Tellus Update (1) Tellus is the source of data to inform 5 DCSF NIs and 3 DCSF-led PSAs NI 50: Emotional health (PSA 12 Improves child health and well-being) NI 69: Bullying (PSA13 Improve child safety) NI 110 : Positive activities & NI 115: Substance misuse (PSA 14 Young people on the path to success) NI 199: Parks and play areas The survey: annual survey covers years 6, 8 and 10 includes all types of mainstream schools (primary, middle, secondary, academies, PRUs and special schools) inclusive of vulnerable and hard to reach groups such as children with SEN and disabilities seeks CYP perceptions of, and experiences and satisfaction with universal services available to them (but not specialist services) With APA and JAR processes coming to a close Ofsted asked Department to take over responsibility for the survey The Department agreed – the Tellus data informs 5 DCSF national indicators and 3 of its PSA indicators (used to measure Government performance in achieving outcomes) Although agreed to take over responsibility for survey, Department realised did not have capacity or expertise to delivery the survey in house In the summer went out to tender for a survey/research specialist company to deliver Tellus. As you know NFER was awarded contract to do the work

Tellus Update (2) New developments Conducted by NfER Schools can include all CYP in Years 6, 8 and 10 Autumn term rather than the summer term SEND versions Question bank schools/LAs can select their own questions from PSHE & Citizenship curriculum pack to support delivery Feedback reports to schools Secure web-based analytical tool for schools to analyse own results Frequently asked why does Government want to deliver a pupil perception survey? Number of benefits to asking CYP their views Helps us to deliver services more responsive to CYP needs and develop policies and procedures that reflect their aspirations Some issues like bullying only way to find out what is happening is to ask CYP themselves Should not underestimate CYP capacity to come up with practical and innovative solutions or think the unthinkable Sponsored MSC student in summer to do final research project on Tellus – spoke to CYP who had done Tellus2 & 3 – suggested we did away with don’t know something else option as we made it too easy for them not to answer the question properly

Tellus Update (3) Stage Timing Confirm sample size with LAs March 2009 Confirm schools taking part April 2009 LAs/Schools select from question bank May/June 2009 PSHE & Citizenship pack June 2009 Survey live 05 October – 16 November 2009 National Summary of NI results and NI Calculations Jan/Feb 2010 LA and School reports Feb/March 2009

Some issues to discuss… What are the limitations and benefits of national indicators as a means of performance managing local areas across the range of their work? Do you think indicators should be based on processes, outcomes or a mixture of both? And why? Can CYP interests be met by a national indicator measuring outcomes/processes for all service users? Or do we need more CYP focussed indicators? What’s the best way of engaging you on the detail of NI proposals for the next indicator set?