Favor Parker | Strategic Commissioning Workshop
Data quality: 7/12 local
SCENARIO Current system trajectory — no change in investment mix
This tool illustrates the possible impact of assumptions you can see and challenge — it is not a forecast. Bands show a plausible range, not a statistical confidence interval.

Welcome to the Strategic Commissioning Workshop

Please read before the discussion starts.

What this session is for

This tool is here to give everyone in the room a shared, visual starting point for a conversation about how resources are allocated between prevention, early intervention and crisis response. It does not predict the future and it does not make the decision for you. The purpose of the model is to illustrate the possible impact of different trade-offs and assumptions on outcomes and costs.

Your knowledge leads, not the model

Every number on the amber and red badges in the sidebar is a starting assumption drawn from published research or set as a reasonable working position, rather than a fact unless it is explicitly labelled as local data. Please challenge, adjust or remove any assumption using what you know about your own communities. Nothing here is intended to substitute for the judgement and knowledge of the councillors and officers in the discussion.

Ranges, not single-point forecasts

The cost charts show a shaded range alongside the central estimate, reflecting genuine uncertainty in the underlying assumptions. Where a "crossover year" is mentioned, it is shown as a range too. Treat every figure as an illustration of what could plausibly happen under a given set of assumptions — not as a prediction of what will happen.

How this fits with real-world constraints

The model now includes a capacity constraint reflecting the reality that upstream services cannot expand overnight, for example workforce recruitment and training take time. Shifting a budget line on a slider does not instantly create trained social workers, attendance mentors or IPS caseworkers, and the model's trajectories reflect that lag.

A note on how this tool should be used

This is a workshop discussion aid, not commissioned software or a validated forecasting model. It has not been through a formal technology assurance process, and its outputs should not be cited in a committee report or used as evidence in a formal decision paper without being independently re-derived through your usual channels. Full detail on its status, limitations and sources is available on the Explanatory Notes tab at any time.

School Attendance — Nottingham City & Nottinghamshire County
Nottinghamshire County Council
Upper tier local authority · 8 districts
Bassetlaw Mansfield Ashfield Newark & Sherwood Gedling Broxtowe Rushcliffe Hucknall
Pupil population: ~97,000 · Persistent absence: 18.4% (2023/24)
Nottingham City Council
Unitary authority · DfE attendance mentor pilot area (2024)
Nottingham City UA Etio delivery partner YEF evaluation
Pupil population: ~15,000 · Overall absence: 7.4% — highest in East Midlands
Combined model population: ~112,000 pupils  ·  Data vintage: DfE 2023/24; Nottinghamshire CC Strategy 2024–27
Parameters applied to other geographies should be treated as indicative only
10-Year Total System Cost
Annual cost across all three tiers under each scenario. The crossover point — where prevention-led investment costs less than status quo — is the central output of the model.
Tier Population Distribution
How pupils distribute across tiers under the selected scenario. Tier 3 growth is the danger signal; Tier 1 growth in early years may reflect revealed demand.
Note on revealed demand: In Years 1–2 of prevention-led scenarios, Tier 1 caseloads may rise as families previously unknown to services start engaging. This is a sign the system is working better — not worse.
Sensitivity Analysis
Which assumptions most influence the Year 10 outcome? The wider the bar, the more this assumption matters. Manually-set parameters (🔴) deserve most scrutiny.
Status Quo
Balanced Reallocation
Prevention-Led
Local data ●
Research ●
Manual ●