Agenda item

Briefing Note of the Deputy Chief Executive (People)

Further to Minute 44/16 ‘Education Travel Assistance Policy Changes – Public Consultation’ the Scrutiny Board requested an update on the policy changes as they had been contacted by parents.  Following consideration at Scrutiny Board 2 on 8^th December, 2016 and a public consultation which took place from 21st November 2016 to 31st January 2017, Cabinet had approved a revised policy on 7^th March, 2017, which was in force in April 2017 for new applicants and applied to existing applicants from September, 2017 (their minute 120/16 refers).  The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills was invited to the meeting and also parent representatives were invited to speak at the meeting.

The Cabinet report noted that Coventry City Council had statutory responsibilities for travel assistance for eligible children and young people. However, it over-provided traditional forms of transport for children and young people compared to statutory duties and the provision made by other local authorities.  There were two key consequences of this.  Firstly, some children and young people were missing out on the opportunity to develop independent travel skills, which could be taken forward into adult life. Secondly, there was significant forecast overspend on the Council’s Home to School Transport budget (2016/17 forecast £3.6m spend against a £3.1m budget).  Current policies and practice were not aligned with national statutory duties.

The Cabinet report detailed the findings from the public consultation and recommended the implementation of revised policies. Where this lead to travel assistance stopping for some children and young people, alternatives were to be discussed with the family including particular consideration of independent travel as appropriate.

The briefing note to update Scrutiny on the revised policy explained applications for assistance and the process of appeals.  It was evident that the new process was labour intensive and the decision making process in relation to entitlement was complex. Many applicants met the eligibility criteria on the basis of distance, in these cases, Special Educational Needs (SEN) criteria did not need to be applied and the applications were processed quickly.  The application of entitlement on the grounds of SEN for children of statutory school age, was relatively easy to apply and most of these applications were processed quickly.  Post 16 applications proved more problematic to process, because there was no automatic duty on the Local Authority to make arrangements.  Judgement therefore had to be applied on whether a young person could reasonably make independent arrangements to travel to school or college.  This was particularly difficult when a student or their parent/carer declared that they had access to a car and a driver, but were seeking reimbursement for the cost of fuel.

Following application of the process, learning and feedback has led to the following actions for improvement:

§  The application deadline for 2018/19 would be brought forward to ensure that applicants received a decision before the end of the current academic year

§  The application form would be revised, to assist applicants in providing all necessary information to inform the eligibility decision making process.  This would be tested with the assistance of parents before it was launched to ensure that it was easy to understand and as simple as possible to complete

§  The application form would enable post 16 applicants to provide evidence of low-income eligibility where required, at the point of application.  This would ensure that contributions towards the cost of transport were assessed accurately at the point of first application thereby avoiding the need to appeal

§  The current Travel Assistance policies would be supported with an easy to follow parent/young person guide.  The draft guide would be reviewed with and by parents to ensure that it provided all of the information necessary before publication.

Parents spoke to the Board about their survey regarding the concerns of over 200 families affected which included:

·  Poor communication most were not aware of the consultation

·  Ambiguous, inconsistent and unhelpful advice

·  Confusing appeals

·  Anxiety caused for parents

·  Ongoing appeals and concerns about whether the process would need to be an annual application

·  Writing a poor letter addressed to young people with learning difficulties

The Cabinet Member and officers present responded to parents by thanking them for their feedback and apologising for the anxiety caused by the process.  The process would benefit from improvements put in place following discussions with parents.  Officers also reported on recent government revised guidance, publicity, consultation events and communication. 

The Scrutiny Board questioned the Cabinet Member, officers and parents on the following:

·  The appeals process

·  Applications refused at statutory school age

·  Disruption to attendance at school during the process

·  Contacting parents

·  Improving consultations

The Scrutiny Board thanked parents for their contribution to the meeting and felt it added value to the discussion.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Board requested a report back be considered in 6 months following the analysis of the implementation and that parent representatives be invited to the meeting.