Pan London PEP Pilot

Katie Rishi PEP Coordinator MAT CLA

Katie Rishi Before setting up Cetas Kinetic, I worked for 9 years within a multi-agency team for children and

young people looked after. When I started, I worked as a research officer, at the time, many authorities didn't’t know where their young people were in terms of their educational progress. After a few years, I was given the role of personal education plan (PEP) coordinator, one of the first dedicated posts in the country. During my time in the role, I was very active in both local and national committees, trying to influence the ways in which we could improve the outcomes for children and young people looked after.

This PowerPoint presentation was the one presented at the London network for Virtual School Heads

and their schools. It describes the piloting of a Pan-London approach to the PEP form and process. The idea behind this was an attempt to try and ensure that every young person in care, no matter what authority they were placed in, would get the same excellent level of intervention and support via the PEP.

If anyone has any questions, then please do not hesitate to get in touch on the details below. Katie Rishi - Training Director Cetas Kinetic LTD www.cetas-kinetic.com k.rishi@cetas-kinetic.com 02083975556

Overview

l  Who we are and what we have been doing

l  Pilot and evaluation l  Main findings l  What next?

VSH sub group: Supporting children out of authority

l  Westminster, Hounslow, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Greenwich, Sutton, Hillingdon & Richmond

l  Regular meetings since Oct 07 l  Share good ideas and good practice l  Examine, discuss and develop existing

strategies to support children out of authority l  Out of authority notification l  Pan London PEP

Why a new PEP Form?

l  Support the work of the Virtual School Head l  Different PEPs from each authority confusing l  Professionals and young people are transient l  Clarifies roles and responsibilities l  Ensures the PEP is an effective tool for

promoting the educational achievements of children in care

Designing the New Form

l  Collected PEPs from range of authorities both in and out of London

l  Decisions about layout and process l  Numerous meetings perfecting each section l  Trial runs for usability – return results to

working party l  Process took 4 months

The New Form

l  Section 1 – Young Persons general information, completed by social worker

l  Section 2 – School information and current educational status, completed by the DT

l  Section 3 – Young persons view, completed by young person

l  Section 4 – The Meeting

Reasons for design l  Only one version of the form

l  It included early years l  It should be able to accommodate the needs of CDT l  It can accommodate those young people out of mainstream

school settings l  Agreed that sections 1-3 should be completed

BEFORE the meeting takes place l  Electronic so should be easy to complete l  Electronic versions of young persons views attached l  Guidance on the front as to who does what and why

Pilot Plan

l  Range of Authorities involved l  Variation of size and systems l  Each of the authorities to carry out 10 PEPs

l  Feedback from l  Social Workers l  Designated Teachers l  Young People l  Pilot Coordinators involved in project

Evaluation l  62 PEPs carried out using new

form l  40 Designated teachers / school

staff l  23 social workers

l  Newly qualified l  Extensive experience l  Overseas social workers

l  Telephone interviews with all l  Feedback forum – 1st July l  Young Persons feedback

l  Various formats

Outcomes – The Form l  Positives

l  Concept positively received l  Felt layout was easy to follow l  Felt roles clearly outlined – help to improve ownership l  YP forms help facilitate discussion l  More it was used the easier it became, rolling document

l  Concerns l  Electronic format – didn’t always work due to different

versions of Word, use of macros, need to add targets etc. l  Not all schools have access to emails l  Jury out as to whether we need more than one form.

School staff more inclined to comment about this.

Outcomes – The Process l  Positives

l  Felt that sending form before meeting really helpful, meant expectation on both DT and SW for information

l  Reduced the amount of information needing to be collated after the meeting

l  Allowed for thinking to be done about YP and targets before meeting

l  Meant YP could be consulted before meeting if not coming.

l  Concerns l  Increase of administrative duties

Outcomes – Training Needs l  A number of SW and DT commented on training needs

l  Not covered as part of SW professional training l  SW not always confident in challenging schools l  SW felt schools were in a powerful position, reliant on good

schools supporting good targets l  DT didn’t always feel SW understood the demands on their

resources and time l  DT didn’t always appreciate the specialist needs of some

children in care. l  Felt there could be a universal training programme, although

mixed opinions about whether SW and DT to join up to do, perhaps part overlap.

Outcomes – Link to ICS & VSH

l  Aware of links to ICS l  Currently ICS are in the process of designing a

standard form – link in our findings l  Nationwide and not “London-centric”

l  Supporting VSH role l  We understand the need for good information l  Want a form that information can be extracted

from

Summary Points l  Positive about universal form across authorities l  Separate section helped to highlight roles and

ownership l  Clearly laid out l  Need to move towards an electronic format and

integration onto ICS to minimise duplication l  Allowing YP to feed into PEP process even if not at

meeting

What Next?

l  Integration with ICS l  Training needs – link to other VSH group l  Central place for template information

l  PEP form, Leaflets & Training materials l  Needs of foster carers l  Feedback Forum – 1st July l  Final Report – before the end of summer

term