Impact Assessment Form and Action Table
Likelihood (1 – Very Unlikely) x Impact (1 – Insignificant) = 1 (LOW RISK)
Why are you completing the Impact Assessment?
Proposed New
Policy or Service
Change to Policy or
Service
MTFP or Paper

What are you completing the Impact
Assessment on (which policy, service,
MTFP reference, cluster etc)?
Service Review or
SCC Change
Programme
Children & Young People’s Directorate
CYP 11.03b
Team 4 (Adolescent Support)
Section 1 – Description of what is being impact assessed
Adolescent Support Teams (Team 4) were originally instigated in 2007 in response to
the need for a service which worked intensively with at risk adolescents (13 to 16 year
olds), and their families to maintain them in universal services and to prevent them
from being excluded from school or being admitted into Local Authority (LA) care.
It was originally envisaged that four teams would be developed working across
Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset and Taunton, Wellington, Wiveliscombe and
West Somerset (T, W, W & WS). Funding was agreed for the overall costs for 4
Teams of 3 staff fully operational at £640K; 50% of the cost was to be contributed from
the Central Schools Budget and 50% from new Local Authority funding. In addition to
this the LA also contributed a further £110k per year towards the infrastructure costs of
Team 4.
Local Authority funding to Team 4 is earmarked to be cut completely by 2013/14. It is
proposed that the existing Central Schools Budget contribution continues at its current
level of £320K in 2011/12 to match a reduced 2011/12 contribution from Somerset
County Council of £170K. Therefore this saving relates to the final £170,000 LA
budget currently within Team 4. CYP 1102i (Education Attendance). The remaining
budget for Team 4, £320K, is funded from Central Schools Budget.
The Adolescent Support Teams following a 50% reduction now consists of the
equivalent of 6 fte staff across the county who currently provide intensive support to
adolescents and their families who are at risk of exclusion from school or admission
into care.
The impact is on the level of support for young people and their families who have
multiple needs social, emotional and educational as outlined in Section 2A and the
subsequent impact on schools as outlined below:
 to improve support to vulnerable young people in schools;
 to act as positive early intervention to prevent exclusions and young entering the
PRU network;
 to provide intensive support to vulnerable adolescents and their families;
 to support those who are at risk of exclusion from school and prevent admission
into care.
Section 2A – People or communities that are targeted or could be affected (for
Equalities - taking particular note of the Protected Characteristic listed in action table)
This service is targeted work supporting vulnerable young people. These young
people have multiple needs social, emotional and educational including:
 Young People in Care;
 Young People leaving Care;
 Young People at risk of becoming NEET (not in education, employment or training);
 Young People in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs);
 Young People with low levels of attainment;
 Young People who are persistently absent from school;
 Young People from troubled families;
 Young People with alcohol and drug misuse.
Section 2B – People who are delivering the policy or service
The Adolescent Support Teams following a 50% reduction now comprises the
equivalent of 6 fte staff across the County who currently provide intensive support to
adolescents and their families who are at risk of exclusion from school or admission
into care.
Each Service will be expected to complete an Impact Assessment on the impact of
Mid-Term Financial Plan 2012/13 on customers/clients/service users etc which will be
shared with unions at Directorate Joint Consultative Committees.
Implications of MTFP 2012/13 for staff in relation to Equality and Diversity will be dealt
with corporately by the HR Policy Manager in association with the HR Group
Managers.
Section 3 – Evidence and data used for the assessment (Attach documents where
appropriate)
Up to September 2009 the Adolescent Support Teams received about 65%- 70% of
their referrals from schools with the remaining referrals from Children’s Social Care.
However, adjustments were made in the criteria for referral during 2009 to place
greater emphasis on Team 4 working to prevent adolescents going into care or
enabling those, who had recently been accepted into care, to return home. This
change was made because of the escalating numbers of young people the Local
Authority was being requested to accommodate and also to help minimise the
consequent disruption to their education. Since this shift the overall referrals to Team
4 were 50% schools and 50% Children’s Social Care with a higher proportion of Social
Care referrals in South Somerset and a lower proportion in Sedgemoor.
However, from September 2010 with the demise of the Local Service Teams, Team 4
has been managed within the Alternative Provision Service and is now receiving 90%+
of their referrals from schools and Pupil Referral Units. Referrals are increasing and
feedback forms from schools suggest that they are happy with the support they are
receiving for the most vulnerable young people.
Outcomes following Team 4 intervention are very positive. In about 90% of cases
referred the young people are supported in a way that prevents either admission into
care or exclusion from school. Adolescent Support Workers intervene intensively with
young people and their families who are referred for a 6 to 8 week period. This
includes work ‘out of office hours’ in the evenings and at weekends and the style
adopted is to bring multi-agency perspectives to build positive relationships across the
family to support the young person and address the family issues.
Section 4 – Conclusions drawn about the impact of the proposed change or new
service/policy (Please use prompt sheet for help with what to consider):
Key issues to be fed into relevant Action Table
Equality
Proposal / Summary of Implications
If the level of reduction proposed were implemented in full, there would undoubtedly
be substantial negative impact on young people from vulnerable groups. However, the
role of Team 4 has changed over the last 12 months. The service now largely works
with young people who are referred from schools and Pupil Referral Units. As current
referrals are almost entirely from schools it is reasonable to use schools budget to
fund this service. The need for funding for Team 4 should therefore form part of
discussion under the Children and Young People’s Compact (with schools) preserving
only residual Local Authority funding for this service to support administration costs.
As part of the compact review of Alternative Provision a proposal has been put forward
that Team 4 become an integral part of the pupil referral units (Key Stages 3/4). Acting
as outreach workers to:
 Work with school staff to improve support to vulnerable young people in schools;
 Act as positive early intervention to prevent exclusions and young entering the
PRU network;
 Provide intensive support to vulnerable adolescents and their families;
 Support those who are at risk of exclusion from school and prevent admission into
care.
Health and Safety
No risks identified – a reduction in Team 4 work would not have any health and safety
implications.
Sustainability
The proposal may impact on community sustainability as it would potentially result in
lower levels of education for children from vulnerable families, reducing employment
opportunities and income. However, as indicated above continuation of the service
delivery should rest with schools Forum and the Children and Young People’s
Compact.
Community Safety
A reduction in the service would raise the potential for more vulnerable adolescents to
be out of school and not in education, employment or training (NEET). This can result
in increased anti-social behaviour and low level crime and disorder, impact upon self
esteem and overall wellbeing. In addition, increased vulnerability of young people can
result in increased misuse of drugs and alcohol and in turn, can have an amplified
impact upon risk of crime and disorder. This can be mitigated by maintaining strong
links with local agencies, particularly police anti-social behaviour staff to ensure that
any anti-social behaviour is addressed at the earliest opportunity to prevent the
escalation into criminal offences.
However, as indicated above, continuation of the service delivery should rest with
Schools Forum and the Children and Young People’s Compact.
Privacy
The principal privacy impact to be considered here is the additional information sharing
between Schools, Education, Social Care and the PRUs. A great deal of the personal
data will be controlled by the school; however, there will be Somerset County Council
data and it will be processed by SCC employees who appear to be outreach workers
using portable laptops etc.
The presence of multiple agencies, mobile working and the sensitivity of the data place
greater risks on the Local Authority and emphasis must be placed on ensuring that the
reorganisation of the service takes into account Data Protection legislation and
Government Connect controls.
Business Risk
No risks identified – Team 4 work does not have business risk implications.
Likelihood (1 – Very Unlikely) x Impact (1 – Insignificant) = 1 (LOW RISK)
Section 5 – After consideration please state your final recommendations based on the
findings from the impact assessment. Also include any examples of good practice and
positive steps taken.
a) Group Manager Recommended Decision (6 December 2011):
Recommendation to CONTINUE with proposed reduction. Equality and other impact
identified, but not severe and likely to be mitigated through Children and Young
People’s Compact discussion.
b) Service Director / CYPD DMT Recommended Decision (6 January 2012):
Recommendation to continue with proposal.
Section 6 - How will the assessment, consultation and outcomes be published and
communicated? E.g. reflected in final strategy, published. What steps are in place to
review the Impact Assessment
Somerset County Council website.
Completed by:
Nigel Shipton
Date
20th December 2011
Signed off by:
Paul Nugent / CYPD DMT
Date
6th January 2012
Compliance sign off
Tony Johnson – Corporate Performance
Manager
Date
16 January 2012
To be reviewed by: (officer name)
Review date:
Version
4
Date
6 January 2012
Equality Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table
Identified issue drawn
from your conclusions
Actions needed –
can you mitigate the
impacts? If you can
how will you
mitigate the
impacts?
Who is
responsible for
the actions?
When will the action
be completed?
Age
None
Not required
Disability
None
Not required
Gender Reassignment
None
Not required
Marriage and Civil Partnership
None
Not required
Pregnancy and Maternity
None
Not required
Race (including ethnicity or national origin, colour, nationality and Gypsies and Travellers)
None
Not required
Religion and Belief
None
Not required
Sex
None
Not required
Sexual Orientation
None
Not required
How will it be
monitored?
What is the
expected
outcome from
the action?
Other (including caring responsibilities, rurality, low income, etc)
This service is targeted
work supporting
vulnerable young
people. These young
people have multiple
needs social, emotional
and educational
including
 Young People in
Care
 Young People
leaving Care
 Young People at risk
of becoming NEET
 Young People in
Pupil Referral Units
 Young People with
low levels of
attainment
 Young People who
are persistently
absent from school
 Young People from
troubled families
 Young People with
alcohol and drug
misuse
 Those at risk of
exclusion
Discussion through
the schools compact
‘Alternative Provision
Review’ would place
team 4 an outreach
service within the
PRU network
supporting those
directly at risk both in
schools and in the
PRUs
Nigel Shipton Compact task and
Finish Group
Draft proposals will
be completed by 26th
Jan
Via the Compact
executive group
A restructuring of
the Pupil Referral
Service
Health and Safety, Sustainability, Community Safety Impact Assessment Issues and Action Table
Areas of increased risk drawn
from your conclusions
Actions needed –
can you mitigate the
impacts/risk? If you
can how will you
mitigate the
impacts?
Who is
responsible for
the actions?
When will the
action be
completed?
How will it be
monitored?
What is the
expected
outcome from
the action?
Police can provide
ASB rates specific to
CYPD requirements
if arranged
Prevent increase
in crime and
disorder and antisocial behaviour
as a result in a
reduced provision.
Health and Safety Issues and Action Table
None
Not required
Sustainability Issues and Action Table
As indicated under Equalities
As indicated under
Equalities
Community Safety Issues and Action Table
A reduction in the service would
raise the potential for more
vulnerable adolescents to be out
of school and not in education,
employment or training (NEET).
This can result in increased antisocial behaviour and low level
crime and disorder, impact upon
self esteem and overall
wellbeing. In addition, increased
vulnerability of young people can
result in increased misuse of
drugs and alcohol and in turn,
can have an amplified impact
upon risk of crime and disorder.
Maintaining strong
links with local
agencies,
particularly police
anti-social behaviour
staff to ensure that
any anti-social
behaviour is
addressed at the
earliest opportunity
to prevent the
escalation into
criminal offences.
TBC by Nigel
Shipton
TBC
Privacy Issues and Action Table
None
Not required
Business Risk Issues and Action Table
None
Not required