Scottish Government

Developing further education provision for people with profound and complex needs

SFC Position

The SFC supports an inclusive approach that appropriately meets the needs of students and potential students with profound and complex needs. This means that all colleges are expected to provide some level of provision, but that specialist interventions are recognised as being necessary. We have taken as a starting point that, the contribution of colleges is in the provision of a meaningful educational experience that develops the life skills of the individual. "Life skills" is a general term which includes: communication and self development; social and independent living skills; decision making and self advocacy and work and leisure preparation.

Considerations in meeting the needs

While some evidence is available, which suggests the needs of this group can be met within existing funding we are considering how a small premium to support students with profound and complex needs would work. This premium would be small enough not to divert large amounts of resources for such a small cohort of students, but would help with mapping and modelling of these students within colleges. A premium could be applied in addition to the current DPG 18 rating for those with profound and complex needs and would be solely for such students and their additional costs and would not be able to be subsumed into the funding of any other activity. The funding would be available for use for in house full time and part time education, outreach and for partnership arrangements that are consistent with existing guidelines.

To ensure appropriate application of a premium, objective assessment of students would be critical. The assessment and allocation of a premium would be supported by a network. Assessments would involve the use of an adopted Personal Learning and Support Plan (PLSP) to assist with the auditing of provision. This would define and make a reality the aspirations of Partnership Matters. It would be an important document that would include sections on the contribution of partners, which would require appropriate signatories to confirm and enforce named partner responsibilities before any college provision is offered. The PLSP would also be critical to recording the progression made by the learner and so would help to further define learner engagement.

Defining the funding package required needs further work and discussions are still taking place in SFC on this issue. In part, this is because any approach is reliant on the resources available elsewhere. Central to resolving funding issues will be the adoption of Partnership Matters by partner organisations to both consolidate and maximise available funding.

Within our discussions, it has been raised that the SFC's "rooming formula" is a barrier to colleges with low volume provision but significant estate requirements - as would be the case when working with those with profound and complex needs. Discussions on this matter have clarified that SFC does not in fact have a "rooming formula". Rather, this perception has arisen from SFC space utilisation initiatives and the fact that SFC does not reflect estate requirements / costs when calculating WSUM rates for subjects. Given that the preferred option does not have significant estate development costs, and is in part offset by the proposed premium, we do not feel it necessary to consider this issue further at this time.

A final key challenge in taking this work forward is the sustainability of funding. In particular, how capacity can be built and supported throughout the sector in the longer term.

There are limitations to what SFC is in a position to achieve. All parties involved recognise that certain external factors significantly influence this agenda and will not necessarily be addressed by the SFC approach alone. Issues concerning parental expectations of ability and achievement, timetabled provision and respite are not issues that SFC can tackle in isolation. Rather, SFC seeks to establish a supported national entitlement for those with profound and complex needs and to better assist colleges to meet these requirements. This would be supported by the Scottish Government's, Partnership Matters which is a guidance document describing the roles and responsibilities of all the different agencies supporting people with additional support needs who wish to study, or are currently studying at Scotland's colleges or universities. The adoption of Partnership Matters will help to fully define the contribution of key partners in this process.

Access and Inclusion Committee update

At its September 2009 meeting, the SFC's Access and Inclusion Committee (AIC) considered a paper on developing further education provision for people with profound and complex needs, which contained the key points outlined above.

The paper included three options and recommended a new approach based on dispersed centres of excellence that would make use of expertise across the college sector and which are supported by a national coordinator and a national training programme. The proposed approach would establish core principles of engagement, assist measurement and amend recurrent DPG18 funding for this group.

The Committee welcomed the paper and supported the proposed approach for being a pragmatic inclusive solution that recognised the importance of learning within a local community. Some further recommendations on taking the work forward were:

• to focus our approach on individual learner planning rather than creating a complex structure and system;
• following on from this, to focus on matching the needs of the learner with the opportunities available at a local level;
• to conduct a skills audit of the expertise available, including identification of the different providers and their roles;
• to apply Partnership Matters as a set of guiding principles; and
• to establish a user led steering function that relates to the overarching structure, based on the principles adopted within independent living approaches.

The Committee also made the important point that the recommendations in the paper make explicit the responsibilities of others, particularly Social Work and success will depend on their engagement.

The Committee supported the idea of the SFC executive bringing in specialist expertise to help inform the implementation of this work. Overall, it was agreed that the executive, supported by expertise from the sector, should now develop an implementation plan to deliver the proposed approach - a network of excellence.

The proposed approach is attached at Annex A.

Recent developments

A meeting is planned for 19 November 2009 that will include representation from Scottish Government, SFC, ADES, ADSW and CoSLA to advise on the next stages on implementation and partnership working on the practicalities and logistics of developing FE opportunities for students/potential students with profound and complex needs.

Annex B provides a draft organisational framework for the implementation of this work and highlights key areas where the DSSG support has been identified.

SFC is also looking to establish a small reference group from the college sector that provide ongoing advice to the project.

Annex A

Network of Excellence

This option prioritises inclusiveness and the relationship between students and their local community. It also recognises the dispersed expertise available throughout the college sectors and draws upon it in situ. Rather than trying to duplicate and consolidate expertise into one Centre of Excellence it recognises, and would utilise, this dispersed expertise throughout Scottish colleges. This would ultimately lead to a dispersed, but coordinated, knowledge base that builds capacity in the sector to better meet the needs of the client group in their own community.

This approach would create a national administrative core which would harness the expertise available nationally and mobilise it to support all colleges locally. It would build capacity in colleges locally in the process; and maintain this expertise nationally through a national learning and development plan. Where professional expertise is located within a college a mechanism would be needed to release it to help to support other colleges. This will require a central co-ordination effort.

Pros:

Makes best use of the expertise the college sector already has and safeguards its future development.

• It is the most responsive option as it recognises and utilises the dispersed national expertise available in the FE sector, deploying it when and where it is required nationally to assist colleges.
• The best people with the best expertise could be called upon, rather than having to make use of only whoever is available locally or who is involved in a centralised CE.
• The associated estate costs of this option would be limited. No new estate would be required as it would utilise existing facilities of all collaborating agencies.
• This is a highly adaptable model that can be developed over time to meet the sector's needs as they change.
• This option would build capacity in the FE sector by sharing knowledge and best practice throughout the sector, rather than consolidation it in one CE.
• It would allow for existing services, initiatives and expertise to be consolidated into a cohesive service without requiring them to relocate to single location, which would make services more accessible, through a "single point" of access.
• By making use of pre-existing services and infrastructure, to facilitate learning in the venue most suitable to the learner, it would reduce the opportunities for service duplication.
• It presents a national co-ordinated model that thinks nationally but impacts locally.

Cons:

• This would not provide a facility that could offer onsite assessment and residential opportunities to augment existing college infrastructure.
• Since it does not require a physical infrastructure it could create a negative perception that the SFC is not adequately investing in this issue.
• If not properly implemented and supported this model could look like it was devised to cuts costs.

Resourcing:

• To establish this option it is envisaged that it would require one full time coordinator with administrative and organisational support.
• Funding for these posts and to co-op the necessary staff time and expertise from appropriate colleges would be required

Annex B

Organisational mapping - a network of excellence

After meetings with Alison Cox (BRITE) and Geraldine Ratcliffe (Scotland's Colleges) the following provisional organisational structure has been drafted.

Basic Structure

It is proposed that the running costs of the network would be for a fixed term to ensure a coordinated approach to capacity building across the college sector.

• National Coordinator
• Admin/ organisational support

The Coordinator would require access to and joint working with National and regional Local Government / Social Work Liaison officers

• Regional Coordinator Responsibility: The purchase of College Staff time to provide regional coordination. This could be managed through a service level agreement with target colleges managed through a lead contact.
• Admin support
• The purchase of College Staff time to provide expertise and support on issues and assessments

Operational responsibilities and key tasks / functions

National Coordinator

• Liaise with Scottish Government and SFC
• Develop partnership activities and relationships with national bodies
• Represent the service to DSSG and take forward national concerns
• Support and coordinate Regional Coordinators' efforts
• Lead the steering group/ Regional Coordinators meetings
• Mapping of provision
• Devising, planning and delivering capacity building programme
• Monitoring and maintaining capacity
• Liaising with colleges to organise and resource staff release arrangements
• Coordinating regional activity (transition planning) and supporting college staff collectively

Admin and organisational support

• Facilitate the work of the Head of Service
• Drafting of supporting documentation
• Making arrangements as required

Regional Coordinators & Admin Support

• Support with Assessment (of needs and estate planning)
• Resource liaison for both students and college
• Partnership / relationship development with catchment schools, colleges, local government, social work, NHS and others as required
• Support with transition planning

Admin support

• Facilitate the work of the Coordinator
• Drafting of supporting documentation
• Making arrangements as required

Facilities

We would seek to locate the National Coordinator within the sector. Regional Coordinators would be identified based on expertise, location and need.

Meetings

• Steering group
• Regional Coordinators
• DSSG

Events

• Best practice and knowledge sharing events, up to four a year that focus on specific areas of interest / practice with open invitations to come to help share and teach best practice, build understanding, capacity and knowledge.
• Annual Conference

Key Stakeholders

• Learners
• Colleges
• Carers
• Social Work
• Schools
• Community education providers
• Local Government
• Voluntary sector
• Disability advocates
• Practitioner expertise
• NHS / allied health practitioners

Key areas that can be discussed by the DSSG (Disabled Student Stakeholder Group)

The DSSG could play a very significant role in supporting the implementation of the proposed approach. In particular they could assist:

• Data sharing, who can see and have access to what information needs reviewed and amended to allow multiagency access to key documents that support the individual.
• PLSP Transition, this should be developed into a relationship based document that follows the individual as they move from one environment to another. This document should require multi agency contributions to coordinate a package of appropriate support.
• Develop a practitioner register, preliminary work to map the sector to identify practitioners with specific expertise who could provide support and advice