Children & Families Select Committee

of 4

Notice of Meeting

Children & Families Select

Committee

Date & time Place Contact Chief Executive Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 10.30 am

Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Cheryl Hardman Room 122, County Hall Tel 020 8541 9075 [email protected]

David McNulty

If you would like a copy of this agenda or the attached papers in another format, eg large print or braille, or another language please either call 020 8541 9068, write to Democratic Services, Room 122, County Hall, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN, Minicom 020 8541 8914, fax 020 8541 9009, or email [email protected].

This meeting will be held in public. If you would like to attend and you have any special requirements, please contact Cheryl Hardman on 020 8541 9075.

Members

Mrs Clare Curran (Chairman), Mrs Liz Bowes (Vice-Chairman), Mr W D Barker OBE, John V C Butcher, Dr Lynne Hack, Mrs M A Hicks, Mrs Yvonna Lay, Mr Geoff Marlow, Mrs Pauline Searle, Mrs Fiona White and Mr Keith Witham

Ex Officio Members: Lavinia Sealy (Chairman of the Council), David Munro (Vice-Chairman of the Council)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Select Committee is responsible for the following areas: Children’s Services, including:

• Looked after children

• Fostering

• Adoption

• Child Protection

• Children with disabilities

• Transition

of 4

PART 1 IN PUBLIC

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive any apologies for absence and substitutions.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 20 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND 10 OCTOBER 2012 To agree the minutes of the previous two meetings as a true record of the meetings.

(Pages 1 - 20)

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting. Notes:

• In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.

• Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

• Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.

• Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

4 QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS To receive any questions or petitions. Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting 13 December 2012.

2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting 12 December 2012.

3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.

5 RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE There are no responses to report.

6 RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme.

(Pages 21 - 32)

of 4

7 OFSTED INSPECTION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets The Select Committee is asked to consider the Ofsted inspection of Surrey Children’s Service undertaken in September 2012 and the recommendations from the inspection.

(Pages 33 - 50)

8 CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES: PUBLIC VALUE PROGRAMME - UPDATE Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review To update the Children and Families Select Committee on the progress of the Children, Schools and Families Public Value Programme and outline an emerging future strategy.

(Pages 51 - 58)

9 LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT IN EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT OR TRAINING (NEET) Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services To scrutinise services to increase looked after young people’s participation in education and training and employment.

(Pages 59 - 66)

10 UPDATE INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT (LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN HEALTH AND DENTAL CHECKS) Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services To provide an update on progress against recommendations contained within the internal audit of looked after children’s health assessments and dental checks.

(Pages 67 - 70)

11 PERFORMANCE MONITORING Purpose of the report: Performance Management To submit to the Children and Families Select Committee the most recent Children’s Services monthly performance report card supported by a narrative.

(Pages 71 - 80)

12 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2012/13 Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets This report sets out the current forecast position on the budget for Children’s Services as at the end of October 2012.

(Pages 81 - 86)

13 DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10:00h on 30 January 2013.

of 4

David McNulty Chief Executive

Published: Tuesday, 11 December 2012

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY – ACCEPTABLE USE Use of mobile technology (mobiles, BlackBerries, etc.) in meetings can:

• Interfere with the PA and Induction Loop systems

• Distract other people

• Interrupt presentations and debates

• Mean that you miss a key part of the discussion Please switch off your mobile phone/BlackBerry for the duration of the meeting. If you wish to keep your mobile or BlackBerry switched on during the meeting for genuine personal reasons, ensure that you receive permission from the Chairman prior to the start of the meeting and set the device to silent mode.

Thank you for your co-operation

of 12

MINUTES of the meeting of the CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SELECT COMMITTEE held at 10.00am on Thursday 20 September 2012 at County Hall, Kingston upon Thames. These minutes are subject to confirmation by the Select Committee at its meeting on 19 December 2012. Members: * Clare Curran (Chairman) A Liz Bowes (Vice-Chairman) * Dr Lynne Hack * Bill Barker * Keith Witham * Geoff Marlow * Margaret Hicks * Yvonna Lay * Pauline Searle * Fiona White * John Butcher * Nigel Cooper Substitute Ex officio Members: A Mrs Lavinia Sealy (Chairman of the Council) A Mr David Munro (Vice-Chairman of the Council) In attendance: * Mary Angell * = Present for all of the meeting A = Apologies

Item 2

Page 1

of 12

P A R T 1

I N P U B L I C

45/12 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS [Item 1] Apologies were received from Liz Bowes.

46/12 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 3 July 2012 [Item 2] The Committee agreed the minutes as an accurate record of the meeting,

subject to amendments suggested by Members. 47/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS [Item 3] None

48/12 QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS [Item 4]

None 49/12 RESPONSE FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT

COMMITTEE [Item 5] The Cabinet response to the Committee’s recommendations on Social Worker

Recruitment, made at the 3 July meeting, was noted. Information on the Youth Support Service providing a targeted Child in Need Service to 13-18 year olds was requested for a future bulletin.

50/12 RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME [Item 6]

1. Members suggested adding the Mental Health Public Value Review (PVR) to the forward plan. The Chairman agreed to consider how the Select Committee could input into the Mental Health PVR.

2. Members were informed that a sub group was due to meet with care leavers to discuss their experiences of the service they have received from the County.

3. The Committee was informed that there will be a joint meeting with Health Scrutiny Committee and Adult Social Care Select Committee to discuss the Health and Wellbeing Strategy. This will take place on the 25 October in the Ashcombe Suite.

4. Members were reminded about a joint business and budget planning session with colleagues on the Education Select Committee. This is due to take place after the Education Select Committee meeting on the 4 October.

Page 2

of 12

5. A task group has been established to help shape the Supporting Families programme. The group will consist of representatives from Adult Social Care Select Committee, Health Scrutiny Committee, Education Select Committee and Communities Select Committees. A Member asked to be invited as a witness to raise concerns about the delivery of the programme in Runnymede.

Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

� Chairman to consider how the Select Committee could input into the Mental Health PVR. � Mrs Yvonna Lay to be invited as a witness to the Supporting Families Task Group.

51/12 CABINET MEMBER PRIORITIES (2012/13) [Item 7] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Surrey County Council Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children’s Services and Safeguarding, Surrey County Council

Key Points Raised During the Discussion:

1. The Committee received an oral presentation, from the responsible

Cabinet Member, which outlined their duties and statutory responsibilities. The Cabinet Member provided an update on their priorities for this municipal year.

2. The Cabinet Member for Children Services is the only statutory position, apart from that of Leader, within the Cabinet. The Cabinet Member’s performance indicators are set by national legislation and there needs to be a clear line of accountability. This legislation also encompasses the statutory role of the Deputy Director for Children’s Services, as the lead officer. Children’s Services cuts across three Cabinet portfolios, also including the Cabinet Members for Education and Community Safety.

3. The directorate is a key commissioner and it strives to promote access to services, whilst ensuring that they are cost effective and efficient. Priority decisions, in relation to children, have to be taken with the lead member, and the intention is to involve the Scrutiny Committee as much as possible to keep Members informed. The Cabinet Member has responsibility for informing divisional members about any serious cases that might arise in their local area. This is in addition to the high volume of casework received from MPs, local agencies and members of the public.

Page 3

of 12

4. The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services has a central role in setting the strategic vision for the service. The Committee was informed of a new strategy that is soon to be published which will take the County through to 2017 and focuses on prevention and protection. This strategy is supported by other corporate polices such as the education plan, employability plan and the health and wellbeing plan. The nature of supporting young people means that there needs to be strong partnership working with districts and boroughs as they take the lead on housing and youth facilities provision.

5. The Cabinet Member has overall responsibility for safeguarding and Looked After Children (LAC). The Member undertakes reviews of case files to ensure that the needs of young people are being met corporately.

6. The Committee was informed of the objectives for the Cabinet Member going forward. The objectives include a focus on preventative services so that families can be supported before they reach crisis point. The prevention agenda involves close working alongside the Supporting Families programme.

7. The Cabinet Member referred to a key success as Surrey being the first authority to implement a savings scheme, for LAC, which is supported by a bursary scheme. Members were thanked for supporting this through their personal allowances. The bursary panel will hold its first meeting in October and the intention is for it to report to the Committee at a future meeting. The County has recently held a Rapid Improvement Event on homelessness and have challenged the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to bring about a 20% reduction in young people entering the criminal justice system.

8. The County wants to encourage more foster carers, guarantee that young people get a good education and reduce the number of out of County placements. Surrey ensures that all LAC can access work experience opportunities with council partners.

9. The Cabinet Member is a member of the shadow Health and Wellbeing Board and the public health reference group. There is a perception that much of the time there is a risk that children play second fiddle to adults when planning health services. An important task of the Cabinet Member is to champion the health needs of children.

10. Members thanked the Cabinet Member for her detailed report that gave an overview of the duties and responsibilities inherent in the role. Members asked for further information over the role of divisional members in relation to serious cases, and on the mechanisms that keep them informed. The Cabinet Member referred to this as a balancing act in which it was vital to keep Members informed about their local community, whilst also protecting the privacy of families. Many child protection cases are currently in court proceedings and this limits the amount of information that services are able to share. The service does provide information when there is considerable local, and media, interest. The issue of confidentiality is complex and a suggestion was made that a private workshop be held with Members to discuss issues around information sharing.

Page 4

of 12

11. Members asked for further clarity as to the role of the Cabinet Member in relation to children with disability. The Cabinet Member informed the meeting that she had recently visited Pond Meadows school to speak to children, and parents of children, who have physical impairment. The meeting was informed that a paper on services for children with disabilities, is due to be discussed at the Committee’s meeting on the 10 October 2012.

12. Members asked the Cabinet Member to outline what they felt were the main risks to the service over the coming year. Funding and budget pressures contained the largest risk to successfully delivering the service. This has been impacted upon by the rise in volumes of cases entering the social care system, and this made strong partner engagement even more important than ever in ensuring that resources are used as efficiently as possible. The Committee was thanked for their recent support in uplifting salaries and ensuring that services received sustainable levels of investment.


� Democratic services to liaise with the Deputy Director to organise a workshop to discuss issues in relation to confidentiality in children service’s cases. � Democratic services to circulate the Cabinet Member’s 2012/13 objectives to all Members for reference.

Select Committee Next Steps:

The Cabinet Priorities to be included as an annual item to be reviewed with the Committee’s Forward Work Plan.

Formal invitation to Cabinet Members to attend Select Committee on an annual basis.

52/12 SERVICE USERS’ VIEWS, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS [Item 8] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children’s, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council Julian Gordon-Walker, Head of Safeguarding, Surrey County Council Belinda Newth, Family Rights and Participation Manager, Surrey County Council


1. A report was presented to the Committee and officers received questions from the Members.

Page 5

of 12

2. The intention of the service user survey was to analyse user’s feedback to identify ways of improving the service to ensure that it is making a positive impact on resident’s lives.

3. The meeting was informed that there is a different approach to managing complaints in Children’s Social Care, as opposed to corporately. Complaints go through a three stage process, starting with local resolution, then progressing to a second stage independent investigation. If these options do not result in a resolution then an independent review panel is engaged to hear the complaint. There is a cost implication for a third stage complaint, but the service has not had to undertake a review hearing.

4. The service wants to see more complaints in relation to children’s social care because they are a critical management tool. The child protection and proceedings team received the most complaints, but also the most compliments. Of the complaints received 60% were upheld, which is in line with ombudsman advice. The service is meeting families to discuss their complaints in person rather than just communicating via a letter.

5. Children’s Services are complex in terms of the number of people involved and because responses need to follow statutory national guidance. It is difficult to explain to MPs that they cannot receive a candid response because the response needs to follow the process as laid out in the Children’s Act. If complaints relate to non Surrey professionals then they are directed to the relevant professional body.

6. Members inquired as to what information is provided to families to explain the complaints process. The care council had considered the information provided to children about complaints to be inadequate and the service is now launching an online site to provide more accessible information which young people can access on their mobile phones. There is a child protection leaflet which clarifies what people can expect when they enter the complaints process. The user feedback questionnaire is largely a tick box affair with clients asked to judge services based on a number of different scales. The forms are left with users so that the responses are fair and uninfluenced by staff.

7. The Committee learnt that in relation to staff attitude and behaviour there had not been any complaints related disciplinary action over the past year. Officers are also less likely to record compliments in relation to complaints as the later involve actions which need resolution, this helps to explain the disparity between the two figures. Members asked that future reports include more information on the total number of interfaces that take place within the service between officers and clients.

8. There are a number of avenues in which a client can make a complaint. The service has been conscious in avoiding a prescriptive pathway to ensure that complaints are received from as diverse a cross section of clients as possible.

9. The complaints team are based in the resources division and similar to the safeguarding and user feedback teams in that they are outside the operational management of Children’s Services.

Page 6

of 12

10. Clients can register complaints via Members, the ombudsman, officers, teachers, a free text number, a dedicated email address and a free post complaints form. There is an issue with clients fearing that a complaint will affect the service they receive and officers are making sure that workers are clear about what happens when a user complains. There is a statutory duty to persuade people to appeal if they are not satisfied with their complaint.


� Family Rights and Participation Manager to share with Members of the Committee the website link, leaflets and all other publicity with Members. � Deputy Director for Children Schools and Families to explore creating a generic front of house information leaflet about Children’s Social Care. � Head of Safeguarding to provide further statistics on total user feedback. This is to provide further context to the figures referred to in the report.

Recommendations:

1. The Committee noted the contents of the report in relation to user’s feedback and

supported the recommendations made by the Education Select Committee in relation to complaints: “That the Children Schools and Families Directorate policy on performance be reviewed to take account of statutory guidance as laid out in the Children Act 1989 and to encourage performance in relation to complaints to improve”.


To consider a further report on service user views, including complaints in aggregate.

53/12 INDEPENDENT REVIEWING OFFICER ANNUAL REPORT [Item 9] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council Julian Gorden-Walker, Head of Safeguarding, Surrey County Council


1. The item opened with the key headlines from the issues contained in the report.

Page 7

of 12

2. The service has been commended with particular mention about the permanence of adoptions in Surrey. The major success has been making sure that of those who are 16+ and in care, 81% have the skills and training they require when entering employment or further education. There has been a considerable improvement in the quality of health assessments and children are generally positive about their placements. There are issues in relation to the 7-9 age group and the ways in which they can speak with social workers. Management action is underway in all the areas where concerns have been raised.

3. The service is looking at how it works with the children in the care council and there is an opportunity to request it to investigate certain age cohorts. Viewpoint is independently managed and administered and the service can ask them to make a judgement on how statistically valid the figures they provide are. Officers are currently preparing a report, with the care council, to agree a format to receive better responses from children in care. A recent audit took place of minutes taken at children in care conferences, it was felt that they do not always issue the challenge that services require. The service is working with area managers to look at how officers can better record the information on case files.

4. The Committee was informed about an issue with the life stories of ten to fifteen year olds. Only 50% felt that they received enough information on their life story. This was raised in a recent deep dive and is now a high priority for family support workers.

5. Members were informed that in the next work programme there will be a dedicated meeting to discuss all reports and papers in relation to safeguarding issues.

Recommendations:

1. That the findings of the IRO report should be used to inform the Services

Placement Stability Strategy.

2. That the IRO Business Plan in response to the Family Justice Review should be made available to the Committee.


The new separated IRO Service will develop a business plan to implement the

changes proposed by the Family Justice Review The IRO Service will work with the area Looked After Children Teams to ensure

we meet the requirements of the Adoption Scorecard. 54/12 EARLY HELP AND PREVENTION [Item 10] Declarations of Interest:

None.

Page 8

of 12

Witnesses:

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council


1. The Committee received an update on the early help and intervention programme.

2. The service intends to move to a partnership approach and is preparing an interim strategy, which will soon be going out for consultation. The service is keen that there is not too much focus solely on definitions instead the main driver continues to be supporting families and children, to improve communities. A large volume of work is underway to agree the narrative and ensure that partners are treated equally, and brought on board. This programme is being supported by an operational group and a Members Reference Group. A future intention may be to bring together the early help and prevention and family support projects.

3. The service is currently pulling together ethnographic research and will be preparing a full report to publish in January which will be shared with the Committee at its December meeting.

4. Members were concerned that this work will be impacted on by cuts in resources and an increase in LAC. The service believed that the best remedy is to focus resources on early support to help families at an earlier stage. The strategy needs to be long term and Surrey should focus on outcomes in five to ten years. Members agreed with this focus and felt that it is better for children and resource efficient. Members wanted to see further explanation on how the community will be made more resilient. There needs to be further support to young mothers and families in Surrey communities.

5. There are a number of strands that will become involved in this agenda. The ambition is for projects to involve joint working that avoids silos, for example looking at greater influence over children’s centres. There will be a number of difficult conversations and the County will need to focus on the things that make a practical and noticeable difference rather than just on big spend projects.

6. Members were reminded that they have the power to protect interventions through their local allocations for example by supporting disability and voluntary groups who provide vital services.


� That Children’s Services discuss with the Member Reference Group how it can share research findings with the Local Committees and then report back to Children and Families Select Committee.

Recommendations:

1. That the Children’s Schools and Families Directorate Public Value Programme

continues to keep the Committee informed of progress throughout the duration of the programme.

Page 9

of 12

Select Committee Next Steps: The CSF Public Value Programme team will share the findings of phase 1 research and analysis with the Select Committee in October-November 2012.

55/12 PERFORMANCE MONITORING [Item 11] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses: Lizz Ball, Head of Performance and Support

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council


1. The latest performance report was presented to the Committee. 2. Members raised the issue of a drop in performance in completing initial

assessments and core assessments. This was attributed to the sustained increase in demand on children’s services. The meeting was assured that all children are receiving visits and that the work is safe. The performance issue is due to failing to meet the metric that all reports are written up and signed off within an agreed time limit. The priority for the service remains the core social work and ensuring that action is being taken in relation to each case. The Committee was informed that performance was affected by the sheer number of referrals being made, and that there may be a hold up at the front door where cases are allocated to the relevant team.

3. The recent Ofsted inspection had reassured Surrey that they are dealing with cases in a timely manner. Nationally there is less of a focus on timescales and in fact the Munro report is calling for them to be dropped altogether. Members raised concerns that when targets were a long way off their aspiration then they either need to be more realistic or that resources are failing to match demand. Members were informed that it costs £500,000 for every 100 cases and that they should bear this in mind ahead of the budget setting meeting on the 4 October.

4. Members requested that further contextual information be added to the performance report to compare Surrey to near neighbours so as to assess how the County is performing regionally. Members would like to understand the comparable budgets that neighbouring authorities possess and the quartile of performance that Surrey was in. The challenge for the service is whether there is enough resource in the market and the recruitment and retention of experienced staff. As the Committee are aware the service is currently working on a paper to look at a career grade payscale.

Page 10

of 12

5. Members enquired to as what difference the money agreed by the Committee, in relation to contacts and referrals, has made to the service. The Committee were thanked for their continuing support and assured that with this increased resource the service has been able to upgrade the child protection managers.


� Head of Performance and Support to include further information on comparative and budget performance within Surrey’s basket of similar and neighbouring authorities.


The Select Committee has forward planned the performance reports at each of its meetings and scrutinises detailed thematic reports frequently throughout the year to ensure both sustained performance improvement and service quality.

56/12 BUDGET MONITORING [Item 12] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council Paula Chowdhury, Senior Finance Manager – Children, Schools and Families


1. The Committee received an update on the Children’s Services budgets. 2. The principal headline was a forecasted overspend of £2m due to the

increasing demand for child protection services. This has been incurred in care allowances and agency staff pay. The Cabinet has accepted that there are valid reasons for the rises in costs and are looking at ways to influence to the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) to ensure the service is sufficiently supported.

3. Members were informed that many services are statutory and that budgets are going to continue to be put under pressure year after year. Children’s services were now beginning to look at possible solutions to ensure that standards remain high but within smaller budgets. A focus is on staffing to see if a different skills mix can be used, for example having family support workers taking on more aspects of the work but with social workers still owning the case. There is a particular focus on the workforce strategy.

4. Committee noted the savings achieved in the MTFP but registered concerns that volume pressures are leading to a forecasted overspend and this should be taken into account when formulating the budget for 2013/14.

Page 11

of 12


� None


Regular Budget Monitoring Reports will be presented to the Select Committee.

57/12 DATE OF NEXT MEETING [Item 11]

It was noted that an additional meeting of the Committee would be held on 10 October 2012.

[Meeting ended: 13:20pm]

_______________________________________

Chairman

Page 12

of 8

MINUTES of the meeting of the CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SELECT COMMITTEE held at 10.15am on Wednesday 10 October 2012 at County Hall, Kingston upon Thames. These minutes are subject to confirmation by the Select Committee at its meeting on 19 December 2012. Members: * Clare Curran (Chairman) A Liz Bowes (Vice-Chairman) A Dr Lynne Hack * Bill Barker * Keith Witham * Geoff Marlow A Margaret Hicks A Yvonna Lay * Pauline Searle * Fiona White A John Butcher Nigel Cooper Substitute * Zully Grant-Duff * Chris Norman Ex officio Members: Mrs Lavinia Sealy (Chairman of the Council) Mr David Munro (Vice-Chairman of the Council) In attendance: * Mary Angell * = Present for all of the meeting A = Apologies

Page 13

of 8

P A R T 1

I N P U B L I C

58/12 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS [Item 1] Apologies were received from Liz Bowes, Margaret Hicks, Yvonna Lay and John Butcher. Zully Grant-Duff substituted for Liz Bowes and Chris Norman substituted for John Butcher.

59/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS [Item 2] None

60/12 QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS [Item 3]

None 61/12 RESPONSE FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT

COMMITTEE [Item 4] None 62/12 RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME [Item 5]

1. The item on services for children with disabilities has been moved to the Committee’s December meeting.

2. The Committee asked that officers continue to update them on social worker recruitment and to be informed on any challenges to filling vacant posts.


� None

63/12 SURREY SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD (SSCB) ANNUAL REPORT

[Item 6] Please note the Chairman amended the order of the agenda, so that Item 7 was

considered before Item 6. Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Alex Walters, Independent Chairman of SSCB Caroline Budden, Assistant Director for Children’s Services

Page 14

of 8


1. The role of Chair of the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) is an

independent role completely separate from local public agencies. The Chair was employed for thirty days a year and was tasked with coordinating, monitoring and scrutinising the performance of local safeguarding services. The board had been affected by having seven chairs over the past four years. The current Chair spent their first six months in position focussed on infrastructure.

2. Members asked the independent Chairman for her opinion on the reasons behind the increase in the number of children subject to child protection plans. In response, this was partly due to the increase in awareness and anxiety amongst partners due to high profile cases such as the Baby P incident. In addition other causes were referred to such as issues with parenting skills, alcohol misuse, domestic violence and mental health issues.

3. There had been concerns that effective multi agency partnership working had not yet been fully embedded within the County. This was something that partners have been working on and the SSCB was reviewing test cases and quality arrangements. This work has been taking place in the context of the Supporting Families programme that aims to align services around the family. The emphasis has been placed on early intervention and more work will take place before social workers are involved. Safeguarding staff were being based in police stations to provide a joined up response to protection issues.

4. Witnesses felt that there was a lack of strategy around Domestic Violence and that there needed to be clearer governance arrangements in relation to this issue. The Committee felt that further consideration needed to be given to how it could influence domestic violence policy. The Committee was informed that a cross party Members Reference Group had been setup to look at the transformation programme for the directorate and would also be considering domestic violence policy as well.

5. The meeting was informed that the challenge made by SSCB to local services was looked at during the recent OFSTED inspection. A key development would be the introduction of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) who would have a role in relation to safeguarding and listening to victims. The service has also been working closely with the emerging Health & Wellbeing Board who will have oversight over the health of adults and children.

6. Witnesses felt that there were strong examples of multi agency partnership working and that partners were clear about where they could improve. The strategic level and the Surrey Alliance were working well, but there were challenges due to the size and geography of the County and work was needed to ensure that there was an equality of services locally.


� None

Page 15

of 8

Recommendations: 1. That the Select Committee receive a six month progress report on the

implementation of the priorities for the 2012-2013 business plan and on how the SSCB will demonstrate and evidence the impact of its actions on children.

2. That the Select Committee be consulted, alongside the Communities Select Committee on the development of a multi agency strategy which sets out how multi-agency strategy which sets out how services will work together to reduce the impact of domestic abuse on children.

Select Committee Next Steps: To continue to scrutinise SSCB at future meetings

64/12 LEAVING CARE SERVICES [Item 7] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Sheila Jones, Head of Countywide Services

James Beardall, Care Services Manager Caroline Budden, Assistant Director for Children’s Services


1. The process of bringing the service back in-house has been a significant

change to the way Surrey works with care leavers. The main issue facing the service was workforce development and there has been significant work underway to fill vacancies.

2. The service was brought in house to create a single aligned service to work with all care leavers. Previously this work had been carried out by three separate teams and managed through a contract with a voluntary organisation. The new service works with care leavers aged sixteen to twenty one (or twenty five if they are in higher education).

3. The Committee referred to the note on care leavers provided by a group of Members who interviewed some care leavers (Attached as Annex 1). Concerns were raised about the consistency of Personal Advisers (PAs) and there were issues with young people receiving vouchers which were not flexible enough to pay for utility bills. The service accepted that there have been some historical issues with PAs and the service was refreshing the training available to staff.

Page 16

of 8

4. Members questioned what the factors were behind staff shortages. In response some were due to staff leaving who preferred to work for a voluntary organisation. The service had also been expanded to deal with an increased number of young people and this created a need for more staff.

5. Members raised the critical role of housing and accommodation for young people leaving care. Members wanted the service to work closely with districts and boroughs, and housing associations, to identify available properties. Members also raised concerns about how the service would be affected by the removal of housing benefit for those aged under twenty five. In response the service were aware that housing is a major concern, and the authority have been looking at what constitutes intentional homelessness and have recently taken part in a rapid improvement event to identify new commissioning arrangements to support homelessness prevention.

6. Members were informed that a contingency plan was in operation until the new staff members were recruited. The service employed agency and bank staff. As an example two temporary contracted workers managed the central duty desk.


� Officers to share with the Committee a briefing note on the actions being taken to address the challenges with the workforce in the interim.

Recommendations:

1. That the Care Leavers Service provide an update report in Six months time addressing recruitment and retention issues; the impact of the Care Leavers Service on housing issues; support for independent living; the provision of information to care leavers; and the impact of government policy changes on care leavers.

2. That a small group of Members meet with care leavers again prior to the six monthly update on the Care Leavers Service.


To review the Care Leavers Service in six months time.

Page 17

of 8

65/12 CORPORATE PARENTING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT [Item 8] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children and Families and Chairman of the Corporate Parenting Board


1. The Corporate Parenting Board (CPB) has cross party membership and represents all agencies in the County who have responsibility for working with Looked After Children (LAC) and careleavers. Membership includes the police, health representatives, Head of Safeguarding and a range of other partners.

2. The CPB has been reviewing its priorities and has developed an updated Corporate Parenting Pledge. The Care Council is represented on the board and action cards are used to agree an area of improvement. The CPB operational group takes these actions forward. The CPB has focused on improving educational attainment which has led to a gradual improvement in GCSE performance, and have been developing the number and range of placements provided by Surrey for LAC. The board has worked to guarantee placements for LAC as apprentices at the Council and partner organisations.

3. The priorities going forward are reducing the number of out of County placements and working to the new Pledge which has been developed alongside children and young people. The new pledge would be shared with Members at Christmas time.

4. The Committee were informed that Member engagement has been strong and that Members have actively supported the service. Surrey was the first local authority to implement a bursary scheme for LAC into which every Member contributes £500 from their personal allocations. The CPB agrees awards for individual young people as a means of celebrating success and providing money to support their education and achievements.

5. The Chairman of the Children & Families Committee and the Cabinet Member recently visited a home in Brighton to inspect conditions in out of County placement and the Cabinet Member had also taken part in an audit of out of County placements to review the quality of care provided..


� None

Recommendations:

1. The Committee will continue to scrutinise the performance of the CPB on an annual basis.

Page 18

of 8


That the Committee continues to scrutinise the performance of the CPB 66/12 ADOPTION ANNUAL REPORT [Item 9] Declarations of Interest:

None. Witnesses:

Sheila Jones, Head of Countywide Services James Beardall, Care Services Manager Suzanne Chambers, Adoption and Permanency Team Manager


1. The Committee commended the report for being informative and agreed with the recommendations contained within it.

2. The meeting was informed that the average length of time for court proceedings in Surrey was 173 days which was better than the national average. The service would continue to invest in adoption support to ensure that adoptions were as timely as possible.

3. The service has more adopters than children to provide as many options as possible for adoption and fostering cases.


� None

Recommendations:

1. That a six monthly update of adoption activity data be circulated through the

bulletin.

Select Committee Next Steps: To review another report on adoption and fostering in one years time.

Page 19

of 8

67/12 SUPPORTING FAMILIES TASK GROUP – SCOPING REPORT [Item 10] Declarations of Interest:

None. Key Points Raised During the Discussion:

1. The Chairman of the Committee presented the item. In response the Committee endorsed the scoping report.


� None

Select Committee Next Steps: That the Committee receives updates from the Supporting Families Task Group.

68/12 DATE OF NEXT MEETING [Item 11]

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 19 December 2012.

[Meeting ended: 12:45pm]

_______________________________________

Chairman

Page 20

of 7

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SELECT COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER – UPDATED 19 JULY 2012

The recommendations tracker allows Committee Members to monitor responses, actions and outcomes against their recommendations or requests for further actions. The tracker is updated following each Select Committee. Once an action has been completed, it will be shaded out to indicate that it will be removed from the tracker at the next meeting. The next progress check will highlight to members where actions have not been dealt with.

Recommendations made to Cabinet

Number Date Item Recommendations Responsible Member (officer)

Comments Due completion

date

R002 1.

Select Committee & Officer Actions

Number Date Item Recommendations/ Actions Responsible Member (officer)


date

SC002 3/07/12 Family Support Programme

To inform and consult with local committees from an early stage through informal meetings with Members.

Sean Rafferty

Discussions on the local pilot project have taken place at the informal meeting of Waverley Local Committee. The Supporting Families Task Group will make recommendations on governance and the involvement of Members.

Complete

Item 6

Page 21

of 7



date

SC005 3/07/12 Social Worker Recruitment

Children’s Service to provide figures of how many changes in named social worker that looked after children have experienced over the past few years.

Caroline Budden This information will be included within the Outcomes for Looked After Children report scheduled to come to Committee in January.

30 Jan 2013

SC007 3/07/12 Safeguarding Unit Annual Report

That a qualitative audit of permanence plans for Looked After Children be added to the audit programme.

Safeguarding Unit

The Quality Assurance team has conducted a Deep Dive on this. The Select Committee will receive the findings of the Deep Dive via the bulletin.

30 Jan 2013

SC008 3/07/12 Safeguarding Unit Annual Report

That the Safeguarding Unit be commissioned to develop with partner agencies a local performance framework in line with government guidance. This will be reviewed by the Committee at a future date.

Safeguarding Unit

The Quality Assurance (QA) framework report was presented to the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) Executive in July and the full board in September. The report was endorsed and work has begun on compiling the QA Data set. Meetings have taken place with staff in the council's Performance team and with those from partner organisations. We have begun to populate the local data set. There has been a new Quality Assurance and Evaluation Officer to

30 Jan 2013

Page 22

of 7



date

the SSCB who will be driving this forward. The work remains on track and should be completed by the SSCB Executive meeting in December 2012. Select Committee to review the new performance framework on 30 January 2013.

SC011 20/09/12 Response from the Cabinet to Issues Referred by the Select Committee

Information on the Youth Support Service providing a targeted Child in Need service to 13-18 year olds was requested for a future bulletin.

Ben Byrne Kathryn Brooks Julian Gordon-Walker

A briefing paper was circulated with the November bulletin.

Completed

SC013 20/09/12 Recommendation Tracker and Forward Work Programme

Mrs Yvonna Lay to be invited as a witness to the Supporting Families Task Group.

Cheryl Hardman The task group will bring an interim report to Children and Families Select Committee on 30 January for consultation.

30 January 2013

SC015 20/09/12 Cabinet Member Priorities

Democratic Services to circulate the Cabinet Member’s 2012/13 objectives to all Members for reference.

Mary Angell/ Cheryl Hardman

A briefing paper was circulated to the Committee with the November bulletin.

Completed

SC016 20/09/12 Service Users’ Views, Including Complaints

Family Rights and Participation Manager to share with Members of the Committee the website link, leaflets and all other publicity

Belinda Newth The information was circulated with the November bulletin.

Completed

Page 23

of 7



date

with Members.


The Deputy Director for Children, Schools and Families to explore creating a generic front of house information leaflet about Children’s social care.

Caroline Budden Caroline Budden to report back in due course.

Jan 2013


Head of Safeguarding to provide further statistics on total user feedback. This is to provide further context to the figures referred to in the report.

Julian Gordon-Walker

A breakdown of figures on the number of looked after children surveyed by Viewpoint was included in the November bulletin.

Completed


The Committee noted the contents of the report in relation to user’s feedback and supported the recommendations made by the Education Select Committee in relation to complaints: “That the CS&F Directorate policy on performance be revised to take account of statutory guidance as laid out in the Children Act 1989 and to encourage performance in

Belinda Newth The Chairman is arranging to meet with the Family Rights and Participation Manager to discuss how this can be taken forward.

Jan 2013

Page 24

of 7



date

relation to complaints to improve”.

SC020 20/09/12 Independent Reviewing Officer Annual Report

That the findings of the IRO report should be used to inform the Service’s Placement Stability Strategy

Julian Gordon-Walker/ Sheila Jones

The Committee will consider the Placement Strategy in January 2013

Jan 2013

SC021 20/09/12 Independent Reviewing Officer Annual Report

That the IRO Business Plan in response to the Family Justice Review be made available to the Committee via the information bulletin.


The Business Plan will be circulated with the January bulletin.

Jan 2013

SC022 20/09/12 Early Help and Prevention

That Children’s Services discuss with the Members Reference Group how it can share research findings with Local Committees and report back to the Select Committee.

Caroline Budden/ Clive Mitten

Officers to report back on 19 December 2012.

Completed

SC023 20/09/12 Early Help and Prevention

That the Children’s Schools and Families Directorate Public Value Programme continues to keep the Committee informed of progress throughout the duration of the programme.

Caroline Budden/ Clive Mitten

A report on the Public Value Programme will be considered by the Children and Families Select Committee on 19 December 2012.

Completed

Page 25

of 7



date

SC024 20/09/12 Performance Monitoring

Head of Performance and Support to include further information on comparative and budget performance within Surrey’s basket of similar and neighbouring authorities.

Liz Ball The request is being considered and will be discussed further with the originating Member.

Dec 2012

SC025 10/10/12 Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) Annual Report

That the Select Committee receives a six-month progress report on the implementation of the priorities for the 2012-13 business plan and on how the SSCB will demonstrate and evidence the impact of its actions on children.

Alex Walters Julian Gordon-Walker

A report has been scheduled for the Select Committee meeting on 20 March.

Mar 2013

SC026 10/10/12 Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) Annual Report

That the Select Committee be consulted, alongside the Communities Select Committee, on the development of a multi-agency strategy which sets out how services will work together to reduce the impact of domestic abuse on children.

Gordon Falconer Ian Vinall

The Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families to respond to Surrey Safeguarding Children Board with regard to governance arrangements for domestic abuse. Domestic abuse strategy governance lies with the Public and Communities Safety Board (Gordon Falconer). The Domestic Abuse Strategy is being refreshed and discussions are being taken forward with officers

Jan 2012

Page 26

of 7



date

as to when it would be timely for the committee to be consulted.

SC027 10/10/12 Leaving Care Services

Officers to share with the Committee a briefing note on the actions being taken to address the challenges with the workforce in the interim.

Sheila Jones James Beardall

The information was circulated with the November bulletin.

Completed


That the Care Leavers’ Service provide an update report in six months time addressing: recruitment and retention issues; the impact of the CLS on housing issues; support for independent living; the provision of information to care leavers; and the impact of Government policy changes on care leavers.

James Beardall Christine Westwood

A report has been scheduled for the Select Committee meeting on 20 March.

Mar 2013


That a small group of Members meet with Care Leavers again prior to the six monthly update from the CLS.

Cheryl Hardman Christine Westwood

To be arranged. Mar 2013

SC030 10/10/12 Adoption Annual Report

That a six-monthly update of adoption activity data be circulated through the bulletin.

Suzanne Chambers

This update has been scheduled for the January 2013 bulletin.

Jan 2013

Page 27

This page is intentionally left blank

Children and Families Select Committee Draft Work Programme (last updated December 2012)

Page 1 of 4

Date Item Why is this a Scrutiny Item?

Contact Officer

Additional Comments

January 2013

30 Jan Placement Strategy Scrutiny of Services – To review the impact of the Placement Strategy. Sheila Jones

30 Jan Family Support Programme

Scrutiny of services/policy development - To review and evaluate progress with the Family Support Programme, including the developing approach to sustaining changes within families. To include an interim report on the work of the Supporting Families Task Group.

Sean Rafferty

30 Jan Outcomes for Looked After Children in Surrey

Scrutiny of Services – To review support for Surrey’s Children in Care and Care Leavers and associated outcomes and work in partnership with the Corporate Parenting Board.

Mary Angell/ Caroline Budden/ Sheila Jones/ PJ Wilkinson/ Maureen Giles/ Garath Symonds

30 Jan Quality Assurance (QA) framework

Scrutiny of services – To review the local Quality Assurance framework as agreed on 3 July 2012.


30 Jan Performance Monitoring

Scrutiny of Services – The Select Committee regularly reviews key performance indicators for Children’s Service, focussing on specific scheduled issues at each meeting.

Liz Ball/ Rashid Jussa

30 Jan Budget Monitoring Scrutiny of Services – This report sets out the position on budget and service volumes for Children’s Services and Safeguarding.

Caroline Budden/ Paula Chowdhury

Page 29


Page 2 of 4


Contact Officer

Additional Comments

March 2013

20 Mar Supporting Families Task Group – Final Report

Policy development – To consider the final report of the Supporting Families Task Group.

Cheryl Hardman

20 Mar Impact of Welfare Reform on Children and Families in Surrey

Scrutiny of services/policy development - To review the initial impact of welfare reform on children and families in Surrey. This follows up Select Committee consideration in March 2011 of how the Council is working with its partners to build organisational capacity to mitigate the impact of welfare reform on children and families.

Nick Wilson/ Jo Holtom/ Kerry Merrill

20 Mar Surrey Safeguarding Children Board – six monthly update

To receive a six-month progress report on the implementation of the priorities for the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) 2012-13 business plan and on how the SSCB will demonstrate and evidence the impact of its actions on children.

Alex Walters

20 Mar Care Leavers’ Service Following on from its scrutiny of the activity of the Care Leavers’ Service in October 2012, the Committee will receive an update report addressing: recruitment and retention issues; the impact of the CLS on housing issues; support for independent living; the provision of information to care leavers; and the impact of Government policy changes on care leavers.

James Beardall/ Christine Westwood

20 Mar Proposal for the Recommissioning of Looked After Children Health Assessments

Policy Development – The Committee will consider a proposal for a redesigned, integrated and co-located pathway for Looked After Children’s health assessments across health and social care using existing resources.

Karen Wells

Page 30


Page 3 of 4


Contact Officer

Additional Comments

20 Mar Performance Monitoring

Scrutiny of Services – The Select Committee regularly reviews key performance indicators for Children’s Service, focussing on specific scheduled issues at each meeting.

Liz Ball/ Rashid Jussa

20 Mar Budget Monitoring Scrutiny of Services – This report sets out the position on budget and service volumes for Children’s Services and Safeguarding.

Caroline Budden/ Paula Chowdhury

To Be Scheduled (* = items to be reported annually) January - Outcomes for Looked After Children in Surrey* January - Placement Strategy* July – Cabinet Member Priorities* July – Workforce Planning* September - Corporate Parenting Board Report* September – Adoption Annual Report* September - Service Users’ Views, Including Complaints* November – Scrutiny of Safeguarding* (In the morning the Committee will scrutinise the Safeguarding Unit Annual Report; Quality Assurance Standards in Social Work; Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) Annual Report; and the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Annual Report. In the afternoon the Committee will scrutinise the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report). – from 2013

Page 31


Page 4 of 4

Bulletin Items January Adoption – Six Monthly Update Report*

Independent Reviewing Officer Service Business Plan to implement changes proposed by Family Justice Review Deep Dive findings for LAC Permanence Plans Designated Governor Reports* – to receive a summary of the reports by Designated Governors for Children in Care

November Private Fostering Annual Report* Quarterly Fostering Reports will be circulated via the information bulletin.

Page 32

[RESTRICTED] [RESTRICTED] [RESTRICTED]

Page 1 of 1

Children and Families Select Committee

19 December 2012

Ofsted Inspection of Local Authority Arrangements for the Protection of Children

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets The Select Committee is asked to consider the Ofsted inspection of Surrey Children’s Service undertaken in September 2012 and the recommendations from the inspection.

Introduction:

1. From 10-19 September 2012, Ofsted carried out an inspection of the

arrangements to protect children in Surrey County Council.

2. The report identified the main strengths and any areas for improvement identified by the Council.

3. The full report is attached as Annex A and is now published on the Ofsted website.

Recommendations:

4. That the Committee scrutinises the report and makes recommendations

as appropriate.

Next steps:

That the Committee scrutinises progress against the recommendations in the Ofsted report over the next six months. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report contact: Caroline Budden, Deputy Director – Children, Schools

and Families Contact details: 01372 833400 [email protected] Sources/background papers: None

Item 7

Page 33

Inspection of local authority arrangements for the protection of children Surrey County Council

Inspection dates: 10-19 September 2012

Lead inspector Simon Rushall

Age group: All

Page 35

© Crown copyright 2012

Website: www.ofsted.gov.uk

This document may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes, provided

that the information quoted is reproduced without adaptation and the source and date of

publication are stated.

Further copies of this report are obtainable from the local authority or at www.ofsted.gov.uk

Page 36

Inspection of local authority arrangements for the protection of children

Surrey County Council

1

Contents

Inspection of local authority arrangements for the protection of children 2

The inspection judgements and what they mean 2

Overall effectiveness 2

Areas for improvement 2

About this inspection 3

Service information 4

Overall effectiveness 5

The effectiveness of the help and protection provided to children, young people, families and carers 5

The quality of practice 9

Leadership and governance 9

Record of main findings 12

Page 37



2


The inspection judgements and what they mean

1. All inspection judgements are made using the following four point scale.

Outstanding a service that significantly exceeds minimum requirements

Good a service that exceeds minimum requirements

Adequate a service that meets minimum requirements

Inadequate a service that does not meet minimum requirements

Overall effectiveness

2. The overall effectiveness of the arrangements to protect children in Surrey County Council is judged to be adequate.

Areas for improvement

3. In order to improve the quality of help and protection given to children and young people in Surrey, the local authority and its partners should take the following action.

Immediately:

§ ensure that threshold arrangements are confirmed as in place and adhered to by all key agencies for children in need and those in need of protection.

Within three months:

§ the leadership of the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB), Surrey Alliance and core partner agencies should establish a clear, joint commitment to the implementation of an integrated early help offer in order to ensure seamless support arrangements for those children not yet, or no longer, at risk of significant harm

§ ensure the implementation of the existing agreement to deliver an integrated child protection initial and risk assessment unit across the local authority, Surrey Police Service and health services in the area

§ ensure that recent improvements in supervision are consolidated, extended and applied consistently across all teams in order to provide reflective developmental opportunities and explicit links withannual appraisal and training plans, particularly in relation to recently recruited and newly qualified social workers

Page 38



3

§ ensure that assessments of children in need, including those in need of protection, clearly evaluate risks, needs and protective factors

§ ensure that child in need and child protection plans are specific about what needs to change for the child and within what timescales

§ ensure that effective consideration is given to a child’s or young person’s ethnicity, culture, religion, language and disability in assessments in order to inform planning and interventions.

Within six months:

§ review the current risk for children who have been on child protection plans for more than 18 months to determine whether a plan is still appropriate to manage and reduce risk

§ review the use of the common assessment framework for any purposes other than the assessment, planning and delivery of a multi-agency early help offer.

About this inspection

4. This inspection was unannounced.

5. This inspection considered key aspects of a child’s journey through the child protection system, focusing on the experiences of the child or young person, and the effectiveness of the help and protection that they are offered. Inspectors have scrutinised case files, observed practice and discussed the help and protection given to these children and young people with social workers, managers and other professionals including members of the Local Safeguarding Children Board. Wherever possible, they have talked to children, young people and their families. In addition the inspectors have analysed performance data, reports and management information that the local authority holds to inform its work with children and young people.

6. This inspection focused on the effectiveness of multi-agency arrangements for identifying children who are suffering, or likely to suffer, harm from abuse or neglect, and for the provision of early help where it is needed. It also considered the effectiveness of the local authority and its partners in protecting these children if the risk remains or intensifies.

7. The inspection team consisted of five of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) and an additional inspector.

8. This inspection was carried out under section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

Page 39



4

Service information

9. The county of Surrey has approximately 246,100 children and young people under the age of 18 years. This is 21% of the total population. Children and young people from minority ethnic groups account for 12% of the total population, compared with 16% in the country as a whole. Some 4.5% of children and young people are of Asian or Asian British heritage and Surrey has a significant Gypsy, Roma and Traveller population. At the time of the inspection, there were approximately 5,500 cases open to children’s social care services and 952 children were on child protection plans.

10. Early help in Surrey is provided by a range of services including 58 children’s centres, augmented by two mobile children’s centres serving rural areas. The council has refocused its youth services to deliver a more targeted response and has established, together with partner agencies, a family support initiative under the government’s troubled families agenda.

11. Initial contacts with children’s social care services are managed by the council’s contact centre, and those identified as requiring further social care assessment are transferred to one of four area-based referral and assessment teams. Children and young people assessed as requiring social care support or protection then transfer to one of the council’s child in need or child protection teams. An emergency duty team responds to children and young people who require support or protection out of normal office hours.

Page 40



5

Overall effectiveness

Adequate

12. The overall effectiveness of the arrangements to protect children in Surrey is judged to be adequate. Children who are at risk of harm are protected through effective and prompt action by the county council and the police. Senior leaders within the council, well supported by elected members, have delivered significant improvements to practice and service delivery from a low base. Staffing levels have improved, resulting in children at risk of harm and most children in need receiving a timely service from children’s social care. However, there remains an over-reliance on the use of locum staff and while measures to improve recruitment and retention are now being implemented, the lack of stability in the children’s social care workforce means that children experience too many changes of social worker.

13. Practice is child centred and risks are identified. Children receiving social care services are seen regularly by their social workers, including alone, and there is an emphasis on understanding and responding to their views and feelings. However, assessments do not routinely evaluate the specific needs of children arising from their ethnicity, culture or religion and the extent to which they fully analyse risk and protective factors is too variable. These shortcomings have an impact on the quality of child protection and child in need plans. These often lack specific goals, and the required changes are rarely made explicit for parents and children. While most child protection plans end appropriately at a time that is right for the child, a small number of children have remained on plans for long periods when no longer at risk of significant harm.

14. While there is a wide range of early help provision, including children’s centres and a targeted service for young people, the integration of early help within a comprehensive needs framework is not well developed. The common assessment framework (CAF) and team around the child (TAC) processes are not fully understood and embedded across the partnership. This deficit combines with a widespread lack of understanding and acceptance of social care thresholds and creates a culture in which some professionals in partner agencies see social care as the response to problems that could be resolved through properly coordinated early help. The CAF has been re-launched and there is a high level of support available to professionals to help them in using the CAF. Senior leaders in the council are aware of the challenges and are implementing an early help strategy. However, the full impact of these factors remains to be seen and it is still evident that too many children are referred to social care when the thresholds are not met. This imposes an undue burden on the council’s contact centre and referral and assessment teams.

Page 41



6

15. The SSCB meets its statutory requirements but its effectiveness in providing leadership and developing partnership-wide understanding and ownership of the broader safeguarding agenda has been too variable. The board, under the leadership of the current independent chair, has recognised the deficiencies and is beginning to have an impact, evident in increased challenge to agencies, the improved attendance at meetings of key partners and the securing of a jointly funded quality assurance post for the board. The SSCB has established four area safeguarding boards which are becoming increasingly influential in their localities and the shadow clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are demonstrating commitment to the safeguarding and child protection agenda. While these developments are important and signal the right direction of travel, it remains the case that too much is seen as the council’s business and key documents such as the thresholds framework relate solely to social care.

16. There are well developed performance management and quality assurance structures within the council, with regular reporting of performance to senior leaders and elected members. In addition to the measurement and analysis of performance indicators, the council uses thematic audits to examine the quality aspects of practice such as supervision. There is routine use of service user surveys to gauge satisfaction with services provided. However, while all of these activities combine to give the council a good understanding of its strengths and areas for development, the performance management and quality assurance framework is not yet consistently robust in driving improvement in the quality of work and the effectiveness of practice to improve outcomes for children, young people and families.

17. The council has taken action to improve the quality of supervision provided to social workers and there is evident progress since an audit in February 2012. However, the improvements have not been across the board, with some staff files indicating infrequent supervision, limited discussion of development needs and learning opportunities and the lack of reflective discussion and challenge. Supervision records for some newly qualified social workers indicated that they were undertaking work above their current level of development. In a small number of cases, staff supervision records do not show what action was taken in response to newly qualified social workers reporting feelings of being overwhelmed.

The effectiveness of the help and protection provided to children, young people, families and carers

Adequate

18. The effectiveness of help and protection provided to children, young people and their families and carers is adequate. Effective action is taken to protect children at risk of harm and there are examples of parents and

Page 42



7

children benefitting from some early help provision, for example through children’s centres. However, despite some progress over the last 18 months, challenges remain in the implementation of a consistent and cohesive early help offer across the county. A draft interim early help strategy has been developed and early help is now an identified priority for improvement within the council’s Children, Schools and Families Strategy 2012-2017. Systems to collate information on early help and to evaluate its effectiveness are being established to inform the Joint Strategic Needs Analysis. However, there is currently no evidence of early help preventing children entering statutory services.

19. The use of the CAF and the development of multi-agency TAC working

are still not consistently embedded across and within agencies. Much work to develop effective partnership working continues through the CAF coordinators and champions, but only a minority of completed CAFs result in multi-agency team around the child meetings and some key partner agencies are not yet fully engaging in the early help agenda.

20. Among cases seen by inspectors there are good examples of effective early help leading to improved outcomes, for example through children’s centre outreach work and the Early Support Service. CAF numbers do show an increase this year, but in too many cases it is being used primarily as a referral form rather than to provide an holistic assessment and response to children’s needs. The quality of CAFs is too variable, ranging from good to inadequate.

21. The number of children referred to children’s social care from other

agencies and the public has increased substantially in recent years. Partner agencies understand the importance of referring children about whom they have concerns and know how to do this. They are less clear about appropriate thresholds and as a result a significant proportion of contacts do not require any further action from children’s social care. Contact and referral processes are effective and appropriate in screening these cases and robust in identifying those cases where children may be at risk and further child protection enquiries are indicated. Children who might be at risk of immediate harm receive a prompt and when required robust response. In other cases the timeliness of responses and completion of assessments is less assured but no children were found to have been left at unacceptable risk as a result of these delays.

22. Assessments consistently identify and address risk but the degree to which

this is analysed is too variable. In some cases seen, risk was clearly and comprehensively evaluated but in others the assessment was overly descriptive and so of limited help in determining where and how interventions need to be focused. Where children are subject to child protection or children in need plans it is not always evident from reports and records of reviews what the current assessment of risk is.

Page 43



8

23. In nearly all cases seen where children were the subject of a child protection or children in need plan, there was evidence of regular activity aimed at improving their wellbeing. The effectiveness of this help varied but in most cases there was evidence that outcomes for children had improved as a result of the intervention. In some cases, however, the child protection plan was not leading to improved outcomes or reducing risk. Difficulties in forming constructive working relationships with resistant parents, sometimes compounded by a lack of consistency of key worker, contribute to this ineffectiveness in these cases. There is appropriate escalation and use of legal steps to protect children where parents do not make necessary changes within a timescale that meets the child’s needs.

24. Most parents spoken to during the inspection were positive about the help they had received and the difference it had made for their children. A wide range of targeted services supports families with lower levels of need and parents told inspectors that they have benefitted from them. However, these services are not always fully coordinated through, for example, a multi-agency team around the child. As a result help provided does not routinely respond to the full range of a child’s and family’s needs. A minority of parents receiving statutory services did not feel they had been effectively helped or that they had fully understood the purpose of the help offered. Some did not understand what was required to remove the need for a child protection plan. Most child protection plans seen were too lengthy and not specific enough to assist parents to develop this understanding. The extent to which children and young people understand the reasons for the help they are receiving, or feel they have been effectively helped, is not clear as this is not consistently recorded.

25. The ethnicity of children and families is not always accurately recorded and assessments and plans were highly variable in the degree to which they identified and addressed needs arising from ethnicity, culture and religion. Some good and sensitive work was seen, for example, in responding to the needs of Gypsy and Roma children but often needs are not identified and when they are there is little evidence of them being addressed. Children with complex needs and disabilities are benefiting from early support and team around the child approaches but few disabled children have multi-agency child protection plans. The local authority has recognised this and is examining the reasons, though they are not yet fully understood. Nevertheless, inspectors saw no cases where children with disabilities were left at risk of significant harm.

26. A lack of sharing by health services of live birth data hinders children’s centres’ capacity to target vulnerable families effectively. Across agencies, early help professionals report that there are difficulties in accessing some services. Some professionals in universal services report that they do not know the range of services available and this constrains their ability to bring together effective teams around the child. There is no current

Page 44



9

collated information to assist this, but the CAF coordinators are now providing a useful signposting service when supporting the production of CAFs.

27. Where children are the subject of child protection or children in need plans

most key agencies participate in case planning processes with examples seen of work that was well co-ordinated. The effective engagement of adult mental health, substance misuse services and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) is much less consistent and largely dependent on the practice of individual workers. Communication and information sharing is effective in most cases although some examples were seen where significant information should have been shared earlier. Where children in need cases are assessed as appropriate for stepping down into less targeted provision, arrangements for ensuring on-going co-ordinated support without social care leadership or involvement are not well established.

28. A significant proportion of referrals to social care progress to strategy discussions and section 47 enquiries. In most cases this escalation is appropriate, but inspectors saw some cases that could have been managed safely through an initial assessment, which would have been a less intrusive experience for the child and their family. A relatively high proportion of children are assessed as requiring child protection plans for emotional abuse. In cases of emotional abuse seen by inspectors, while children were clearly in need of support and help it was often unclear how it had been determined that the threshold of significant harm or risk of significant harm for a child protection plan under this category was met. As a consequence the nature of the harm being experienced by the child and how this might be reduced was not clearly established. With these exceptions, decisions to make children the subject of child protection plans are appropriate although in some cases seen children are remaining on child protection plans when it is unclear whether the threshold criteria continue to apply. Often the views of partner agencies had been overly influential in the decision to retain the plan in these cases.

The quality of practice

Adequate

29. The quality of practice is adequate. The application of thresholds for accessing social care services through the contact centre and assessment teams of the local authority is inconsistent. While child protection referrals are consistently recognised and acted upon, social care also acts on other referrals that do not identify substantive levels of concern for children. Despite recent revision to the thresholds and eligibility criteria for children in need, too many referrals are taken where children fall below the level at which a social care assessment is required. Many referrals from partner agencies are descriptive, lacking significant information and failing to

Page 45



10

identify the level of concern clearly enough. This contributes to an undue burden on children’s social care assessment teams. For example, the police service sends 15-20,000 undifferentiated notifications of contact with children and families to the contact centre each year, all of which require screening and risk assessment. Partners have recognised that better communication and risk management arrangements are needed. Children’s social care, police and health have agreed to implement more effective triage arrangements through an integrated child protection initial and risk assessment unit, but this remains to be established.

30. Social work practitioners and managers provide expertise within the contact centre and evaluate cases where there are concerns about a child. However a number of cases progressing from the contact centre to referral and assessment teams were subsequently assessed not to meet social care threshold criteria. This variability causes delays in the offer of early help for children and contributes to the uncertainty about thresholds that is evident in discussions with partner agencies and professionals. While a number of agencies expressed a view that social care thresholds are too high, this is not shared by inspectors. Recent efforts to provide informal social work advice to partner agencies have been positively welcomed by partners and have led to a better understanding of children’s needs and prompt access to appropriate help.

31. Where there are clear indicators that a child is or may be at risk, initial

decision making and action in both the contact centre and referral and assessment teams are appropriate and timely. However, in some cases, there was escalation to section 47 enquiries when it was not clear that the threshold was met and a child in need response might have been more appropriate. Of those children who do proceed to section 47 enquiries, only 40% are made the subject of an initial child protection conference. This means that a high proportion of children referred receive an unduly intrusive intervention. There is effective communication between daytime and out of hours services, and requests for action from daytime services receive an appropriate response from the out of hours service.

32. All child protection enquiries are conducted by qualified social workers and

overseen by operational managers. Strategy discussions and meetings between social care, police and other agencies are well managed and documented. These provide an effective planning mechanism to inform any necessary enquiries and interventions. While such enquiries are conducted within appropriate timescales, most initial child protection conferences are not held in a timely way. Reports to child protection conferences identify and clearly evidence risks, but the analysis and evaluation of those risks and other vulnerability factors are not always fully developed. In consequence, some child protection plans are too vague, lacking specific goals and actions that enable parents to know what needs to change. Although there is good multi-agency participation in most child protection conferences and core groups, in some cases seen,

Page 46



11

key participants such as health professionals including those from adult mental health services had not attended.

33. The overall quality of assessments is adequate. Assessments are conducted in a timely way with children being seen and regularly seen alone. There is much evidence that social workers develop effective professional relationships with children and young people with clear efforts to elicit and incorporate their views and feelings into plans. There are good examples of social workers within the children with disability teams working hard to understand children’s wishes and feelings about their needs despite the complex communication challenges involved. However, inspectors saw few examples where children who were the subject of child protection conferences had an advocate or were otherwise helped to express their views directly to the conference rather than indirectly through the social worker’s report.

34. Review child protection conferences and core groups are generally timely

and sensitively conducted. Not all agencies involved with families attend or provide a report to these meetings, leading to a partial picture of the circumstances of the child and family. Most plans are extensive but they are often not specific enough about the objectives required to protect the child. Plans are often unnecessarily detailed, with expectations that do not relate directly to the protection of the child. Not all reports to conference are shared with parents and children far enough in advance. While many parents and carers understand and welcome the support, some remain unclear about the purpose of the plan and what their responsibilities are.

35. Management oversight of social work practice through supervision is variable. In almost all cases tracked there is evidence on case files of regular managerial direction through formal and ad hoc supervision. However, formal supervision does not always focus sufficiently on required outcomes within defined timescales. The quality of staff supervision files varies greatly across localities and teams. There have been improvements since an audit in February 2012 and inspectors saw some good examples of regular supervision with good support and development for practitioners. However, this is not consistent and in one team almost all supervision files were inadequate, with long gaps in recorded supervision. These records demonstrated insufficient focus on induction, training and development, and a lack of reflective discussion.

Page 47



12

Leadership and governance

Adequate

36. The judgment for leadership and governance is adequate. Following the finding of significant shortcomings in children’s social care by an inspection in 2008, incoming senior leaders in the county council prioritised the improvement of child protection services. Front line social care budgets have been protected and in some cases increased by elected members to ensure that these improvements are sustained. The council has increased practitioner and first line manager staffing levels and is now beginning to implement measures such as the introduction of a social work career grade to improve recruitment and retention. However, the impact of this has yet to emerge and there remain significant numbers of vacant posts. These are covered by locum staff, which ensures that there are sufficient practitioners and first-line managers to deliver services and that children known to social care are seen and spoken to regularly by their social workers. However, the continuing high level of temporary staff has an adverse impact on workforce stability as well as budgets.

37. The focus of both the council and the SSCB on improving children’s social care has contributed to a lack of focus on the development and implementation of partnership working in some key areas of wider safeguarding and early help provision. For example, multi-agency triage for referrals, including those generated by the police, is only now being developed. In consequence, social care receives a high volume of referrals to its contact centre, many of which do not reach the thresholds for social care intervention. Similarly, there has been a lack of attention and strategic development in relation to early help and CAF and TAC processes are under-developed. While there is an early help strategy and systems and structures are now in place, the extent to which they are understood and used is variable and the consistent engagement of partner agencies remains uncertain. Some practitioners in partner agencies still see the CAF as cumbersome and not their business, and this perception is enhanced by confusion about its continuing use as a referral tool for access to resources. The thresholds document was produced by social care managers in consultation with partner agencies, but relates solely to social care provision and this contributes to the lack of understanding of thresholds across the partnership.

38. Formal reporting arrangements and accountabilities at senior levels are clear. The council’s chief executive, the lead member for children’s services and the council leader all receive performance and other reports on child protection and safeguarding as a matter of routine. There are regular and frequent meetings between senior officers and senior elected members at which performance is reviewed and the director and deputy director of children’s services held to account. The chair of SSCB meets

Page 48



13

routinely with senior officers and there is evidence of strong challenge as well as support.

39. The SSCB meets the minimum requirements of Working Together and the Local Safeguarding Board Regulations. As the independent chair and partner agencies recognise, its size and structure have impaired its ability to exercise effective leadership across the partnership. As a result, it has not had sufficient influence to ensure the timely delivery of key objectives such as the development by the Surrey Alliance (the children’s trust) of a co-ordinated early help offer. The SSCB has also recognised the need to ensure a more efficient and effective set of arrangements for aligning with multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) and multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). It acknowledges the need to ensure that the health sub-group of the SSCB has an impact across the whole partnership and not just within the health community. The current independent chair has begun the process of improvement with new posts and a leaner organisational framework being developed to support a much-needed acceleration in the pace of change. The attendance of key partners at board and sub-group meetings has improved. However, the impact of recent improvements and plans has yet to be fully realised in the quality and consistency of provision.

40. Detailed performance management and quality assurance structures include routine weekly and monthly reporting at different levels up to and including elected members. These provide performance information, and analysis of this has been used to monitor compliance and identify trends. This routine performance management is supported by periodic deep dives and thematic audits focusing on quality, for example an examination of supervision in January 2012. Managers at all levels regularly carry out case file audits, in some cases supported by senior elected members. Issues arising from audits are followed up immediately at individual level and learning is aggregated to inform training and policy development. However, the performance management and quality assurance framework is not consistently robust in driving improvement in the quality of work and the effectiveness of practice. For example, the council’s supervision file audit in January found some significant weaknesses which were still in evidence during this inspection. Recognition of poor performance in the timeliness of initial child protection conferences has led to some improvement, but this performance indicator remains worse than that of similar local authorities and the national average.

41. Most social workers and family support workers express positive regard for their managers and describe an organisational culture that is open, child centred and founded on trust. There is ready access to ad hoc support as well as regular formal supervision which considers their personal and professional well-being and development in addition to casework. Some staff, however, find that their supervision does not help them reflect on analysis of cases, tending to be functional. Poor performance has been

Page 49



14

tackled robustly and a number of staff and managers have been made subject of performance plans, with appropriate monitoring and review of progress against improvement objectives. Caseloads are reported by social workers as manageable.

42. The views of children, young people and parents are routinely sought and the council has been successful in securing a high rate of return of service user questionnaires through quarterly surveys. Learning from these includes the key message that skilled intervention from a consistent social worker over time is a significant factor for families. However, the use of this learning in developing services is not apparent in strategy documents and service developments. Complaints are analysed and findings aggregated to enable learning, for example about the sharing and recording of personal data. While learning is disseminated through briefing notes, and where appropriate triggers practice reviews to see if changes are needed, it is not clear from reports how learning from complaints has influenced strategic developments and service design and review. However, there is some evidence that individual and team-level learning has occurred. Arrangements are in place to ensure that learning from serious case reviews is shared through localised briefings under the auspices of the local safeguarding groups. Inspectors saw evidence that a range of agencies had received briefings about the identification in a serious case review of missed opportunities for the use of inspection reports of other local authorities.

Record of main findings

Local authority arrangements for the protection of children

Overall effectiveness Adequate

The effectiveness of the help and protection provided to children, young people, families and carers

Adequate

The quality of practice Adequate

Leadership and governance Adequate

Page 50

of 7


19 December 2012

Children, Schools and Families Public Value Programme – Update

Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review To update the Children and Families Select Committee on the progress of the Children, Schools and Families Public Value Programme and outline an emerging future strategy.

Introduction

1. The Public Value Programme has been set up by the Children Schools

and Families Directorate in response to a number of challenges facing the directorate including: rising demand and need for services; a growing number of families suffering social disadvantage; a policy emphasis on early help and preventing problems before they escalate, supporting families, and delivering integrated disability services; and national and local financial pressures.

2. There are a number of factors to be assessed to discover the impact of the changes to policy, particularly with regards to the Welfare Reform Act, incapacity benefit re-assessment, housing benefit reform, lone parent obligations, tax credits and the autumn statement.

3. The objective of the programme is to enable collaborative partnership working with all partners. This would bring greater efficiencies and effective working practices to collectively benefit children, young people and families in Surrey through a whole systems approach, with a continued emphasis on alignment, integration of functions and tasks within the directorate. There is a need to improve outcomes, while delivering savings of £40 million by 2017, which is in line with the Medium Term Financial Plan.

4. The programme has identified three key priority areas to address in the

strategy going forward looking at disability, early help and family support provision.

Item 8

Page 51

of 7

Methodology for Phase 1 – Assess and Understand

5. The purpose of Phase 1 is to assess and understand the current provision

across the directorate and its partners. The first phase of the programme, largely evidence gathering, involved a needs analysis, a review of effective practice nationally and locally and of national and international research, consultation with Surrey front line staff, external strategic partners and families.

6. Extensive research is required to ascertain the full extent of services currently provided, the resources employed to deliver the provision (employees, external providers), the quality of services provided (performance management) and the enablers (business processes, information technology and estates). Future needs are determined through demographic and ethnographic research. Future provision, the type and scale, is determined from central and local government policy, the study of effective practice elsewhere, consultation with the ‘expert’ groups of stakeholders taking into consideration the constraints including future financial targets.

7. The analysis involves the shaping of current to future provision, often the

output of complex processes, into clearly identified lower level activities. In Phase 2, options and testing will identify the cost of delivering these activities, which can be ascertained from analysis of the past spend and current budgets. Options for the future provision are to be generated from the projects focussing on early help, family support and children with disabilities. The cost of the future provision can then be determined from a detailed understanding of the constituent services and the drivers, constraints and enablers for delivery.

8. The project areas being assessed under the three key priority areas are set out as follows:

a) Disability services, sponsored by the Assistant Director for Schools and Learning. This project should deliver a whole system, with partners, for children and young people with disabilities, while fulfilling on the major themes of the Government’s 2012 SEND Green Paper.

b) Family support, sponsored by the Assistant Director for Young People. This project will design, build and implement a system of with partners to target provision to those families most in need.

Page 52

of 7

c) Early Help, sponsored by the Assistant Director for Children's Services and Safeguarding. The objectives of the early help project are to deliver the vision for early help in Surrey. The Early Help strategy outlines the vision for Early Help targeted services for the child and the family, that “Every child and young person will be safe, healthy and happy, creative, and have the personal confidence, skills and opportunities to contribute and achieve more than they thought possible”. There is an aim to develop and implement an Early Help culture amongst all staff and a framework to improve outcomes in order to reduce the numbers in need of acute and specialist care.

9. Three groups have been formed, one for each of the priorities set. The

purpose of the groups is to provide an ongoing steer and verification of the research analysis and findings and to provide a creative forum for the testing of ideas and options. These groups are and will continue to be consulted regularly, along with wider engagement and consultation with staff and partners, before a model to address the Children’s needs are best addressed in the context of the whole family approach across Surrey. The expert or reference groups as they are moving to be known, are fundamental in enabling a collaborative partnership approach to developing and implementing future options.

10. The Public Value Programme timescales for the delivery will be carried

out in four phases:

a) Phase 1: Assess and Understand (July 2012 –December 2012). Key activities in phase 1 have included: ethnographic interviews with families in Surrey; analyses of finance and current provision; needs analysis; review of effective practice; and consultation with professional experts.

b) Phase 2: Options and Testing. During this phase the programme will work with services and partners to develop ideas and options for the delivery of a whole systems approach to services, using the research findings from Phase 1 and professionals’ expert knowledge. As part of the options and testing phase the programme will identify the cost of delivering these activities, which can be ascertained from analysis of the past spend and current budgets. Options for the future provision are to be generated from the projects focussing on early help, family support and children with disabilities. The cost of the future provision can then be determined from a detailed understanding of the constituent services and the drivers, constraints and enablers for delivery.

c) Phase 3: Implementation of options and models will take place

during this period together with an on-going option and piloting of practice.

d) Phase 4: Transition. A new system of service delivery will be in place by April 2014.

Page 53

of 7

Progress

11. The following activities have been completed:

a) 65 ethnographic interviews completed and analysed (16 medium /

high service users). b) Internal and external current service provision mapped for Surrey. c) Finance data provided and analysed in terms of spend by the

directorate in each project area (early help, family support and disability services).

d) Literature review of policy documents complete and key themes identified.

e) Critical contracts and those due to expire within the life of the Programme identified.

f) Legislation and statutory duties governing the CSF service and its functions identified. Initial themes of effective practice identified.

g) Commissioning strategies and processes identified and report drafted.

h) Forthcoming policy changes that may impact on CSF services identified.

i) Performance data collated and analysed. j) Consultation interviews have taken place with internal staff at a

strategic and operational level, strategic partners and families within Surrey through the pathfinder work.

Conclusions:

12. The Children Schools and Families Public Value Programme, which

aims to ensure that services are outcome focussed and as cost effective, efficient and sustainable for the future, is now coming to the end of Phase 1 and reviewing the information and data gathered to be used as evidence to inform the key strategic principles to discuss with partners to provide a direction of travel after phase 2, options and testing has been completed.

Financial and value for money implications 13. The Public Value Programme will need to deliver £40 million that the

directorate will have to save over five years. These savings will be made at a programme level.

Equalities Implications 14. An equalities screening will be carried out as part of the Programme to

identify the positive and negative impacts on equality groups. A full Equalities Impact Assessment will be carried out to identify and mitigate negative impacts.

Page 54

of 7

Risk Management Implications 15. Risk management for early help will be undertaken within the CSF Public

Value Programme and risks will be escalated as necessary through the programme’s governance structure.

Implications for the Council’s Priorities or Community Strategy/Local Area Agreement Targets 16. There is a clear overall direction and commitment to early help, family

support, and disability services in Surrey’s new Children and Young People’s strategy 2012-17. This strategy sets out the directorate’s vision and four priorities: prevention, protection, participation and potential.

Recommendations:

17. The Children, Schools and Families Directorate Public Value

Programme keeps the Children and Families Select Committee informed of progress throughout the duration of the programme.

Next steps:

18. Phase 2 of the Public Value Programme will run until June 2013. In this

phase the programme will look at all available options for the future in collaboration with partners and identify the changes to service provision required to move from the current provision to the future required provision. The changes identified will define the direction of travel, which is dependent on national and local policy drivers, financial constraints and the type of provision needed.

19. The programme will be working closely with services and partners

through the expert/reference groups and other engagement channels through existing governance structures to help shape the required provision for the future demand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report contact: Catherine Pavlides, CSF PVP Strategy and Commercial Manager Contact details: Tel: 0208 541 7575, Email: [email protected] Sources/background papers reviewed to inform future strategy direction:

1. Briefing Paper: delivering Children’s Services in the UK and Other Parts of the World – a Short Policy Context, August 2011, C4EO

Page 55

of 7

2. Children and Young People with Complex Needs: Specialism Update, March 2012, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

3. Designing Services For Families With Complex Needs Literature Review, (YEAR) London Borough of Ealing

4. Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings – Briefing Paper, July 2011, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

5. Framework for the Inspection of Local Authority Arrangements for the Protection of Children, April 2012, Ofsted

6. Inspections of Arrangements for The Protection of Children, January 2012, Ofsted

7. Making Sense Of Early Intervention: A Framework For Professionals, accessed Sept 2012, The Centre for Social Justice

8. Munro Review of Child Protection – Progress Report: Moving Towards a Child Centred System, June 2012, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

9. Report of the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum, August 2012, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

10. Report of the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum, Accessed Sept 2012, Health Outcomes Forum

11. Social and Emotional Wellbeing: Early Years (draft guidance), June 2012, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

12. Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five, accessed Sept 2012, Department for Education

13. Support and Aspiration: A new Approach to SEND and Disability – progress and next steps, June 2012, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

14. Think Child, Think Parent, Think Family: Final Evaluation Report, March 2012, Social Care Institute for Excellence

15. Troubled Families Programme: Summary Of Existing Literature and Key Sources of Information, June 2012, National Youth Agency

16. Early Intervention: The Next Steps – Briefing Paper, February 2011, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

17. Briefing on the Munro Review: Final Report, May 2011, Surrey County Council Policy and Research Team

18. The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report, May 2011, Department for Education

19. JSNA Chapter - Children Living in Poverty, August 2011 20. CSF Policy Landscape, Q1 April - June 2012, Surrey County Council

Policy and Research Team 21. JSNA Chapter – Parenting, June 2012 22. Children, Families and Maternity e-bulletin, June 2012, Department

of Health 23. JSNA Chapter – Family Stability, July 2012 24. Listening to Troubled Families: A report by Louise Casey, July 2012,

Department for Communities and Local Government 25. Children, Families and Maternity e-bulletin, August 2012,

Department of Health 26. CSF Policy Landscape, August 2012, Surrey County Council Policy

and Research Team

Page 56

of 7

27. JSNA Summary, August 2012 28. Ofsted Report 2012 recommendations 29. Surrey’s Draft Early Help Strategy 2012-13 30. Children and Young People’s Strategy 2012-17 31. Life Course Framework 2012-17 32. Welfare Reform Act, 33. Incapacity Benefit Re-assessment 34. Housing benefit reform 35. Lone parent obligations 36. Tax credits 37. Autumn statement summary

Page 57

of 8


19 December 2012

Looked After Children who are not in education, employment or training (NEET)

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of services To scrutinise services to increase looked after young people’s participation in education and training and employment. This report has been prepared at the request of the Committee

Introduction:

1. Across the country looked after children and young people leaving care

are significantly more likely than their non-looked after peers to be NEET (not in employment, education or training). The Youth Support Service (YSS) has lead responsibility for the participation of all young people in Surrey and priority is given to ensuring that looked after young people are successfully participating (PETE). The Youth Justice Service, and latterly the integrated YSS, assumed responsibility for support and tracking of all looked after young people into provision from May 2011.

• The YSS responsibility is undertaken alongside Children’s Service and the Virtual School. The focus of YSS engagement has been threefold:

• To ensure young people are in full time provision after leaving

statutory education

• To support this cohort if at risk of discontinuing from provision

• To report monthly on the whole cohort’s progress

Item 9

Page 59

of 8

2. Over the last 18 months participation by Surrey’s looked after young

people has increased and the numbers who are NEET are almost

exclusively confined to those who have acute challenges as a result of

multiple moves, significant emotional or physical health issues or

because they are a parent or are expecting a child.

NEET Reduction and Prevention

3. Work has been ongoing to clarify the respective roles of the Youth

Support Service, the Virtual School and Children’s Social Care. Over-arching case responsibility sits with the looked after teams, with the YSS taking responsibility for participation and retention of ETE placements, while the Virtual School leads on young people’s progression and attainment. In practice this means that the YSS’s work is with those who are NEET or those most at risk of becoming NEET. The small number of young people who are NEET disguises the fact that there is a great deal of work with this cohort of young people who move in and out of participation in employment, training or education (PETE) at a higher rate than their non-looked after peers.

4. The approach taken by the YSS has been to work closely with social

care teams to jointly visit and prioritise those who are NEET or are most at risk of becoming NEET in conjunction with Virtual School. Particular focus is given to ensuring looked after young people make a successful transition (usually to college) at the end of Year 11. This has also led to developing closer links with education and training providers to ensure financial / welfare support and communication processes are robust. The cohort is reviewed monthly and additional YSS input is triggered by social care communication as well as a provider input.

5. Improving outcomes has focussed on a number of strategies. Firstly a

focus on improving relations with the providers of post-16 education and training have been the subject of much attention to ensure appropriate provision is accessible, to support young people to make sure they keep their place in training or education, and to promote effective communication so that issues are addressed early. This has led to half-termly review meetings for all looked after young people in a college between the college, virtual school and the YSS.

6. Secondly the extension of provision to meet the needs of young people

who would normally struggle in traditional learning environment has created greater opportunities for looked after young people. Skills centres have developed to provide localised learning opportunities for those young people not yet ready for work or college. Meanwhile the Youth Support Service has been developing provision, the Ready for Work programme, for those needing a significant level of preparation and support in order to access full time provision. Both opportunities have been utilised in improving outcomes for this group.

Page 60

of 8

7. Those looked after children placed out of Surrey have historically had worse outcomes than those living in Surrey. Over the last year the YSS has developed links with other authorities in order to ensure that our young people out of Surrey receive high quality advice and guidance in the authority in which they are placed. This is ongoing work but already this already bearing fruit in terms of improved participation as a result of the additional support that can now be accessed for those outside of Surrey. Arrangements with external local authorities will continue to be one of the priorities for further development over the next 6 months.

Young Person – Case Example Mark’s foster placement in Guildford broke down in August 2011 and he moved to a placement in Epsom. His social worker and youth support officer worked closely with Mark on his options in his new placement and he was supported to enrol in a local college. Despite close liaison with the college pastoral support service he did not sustain his place and discontinued by October. He was then accommodated out of county until February when he returned to Elmbridge. Because of the short-term nature of this placement he was unable to access education provision. He was re-engaged by the YSS and started on the Princes Trust course in May. He completed this course successfully. He is currently engaged in the Ready for Work programme (R4W) in Elmbridge and is gaining skills working on community projects which will prepare him for formal work and support his aspiration to be self-employed. Placement changes associated with the challenges of managing Mark’s behaviour demonstrate the difficulties in retaining ETE provision. Consistent support and close co-ordination between the YSS, the Looked After Team and Virtual School have enabled Mark to access a package of flexible ETE support now that he appears ready.

8. Barriers to participation are well documented with this group. The YSS undertakes deep-dives to understand the needs of those who are both looked after and NEET. The last of these took place between September and October 2012 focussing on the 19 NEET young people.

9. YSS work to increase looked after young people’s participation identifies five recurring barriers to participation and were evident in the September deep-dive:

• Placement instability: moving impacts on the stability of any provision and is the most prevalent theme amongst those who are NEET. Of the 19 NEET young people at 1st October 2012 12 had at least 2 different placements, while 7 had 4 or more over the previous 12 months. Work with Children’s Service focuses on

Barriers to Participation

Page 61

of 8

ensuring where placements have to change that ETE provision is maintained.

• The more recently the young person has come into care the greater the chance they would be NEET. Of the 19 NEET young people, 11 had been accommodated over the previous 24 months.

• Disrupted statutory education reflects the final common barrier. 12 of the group had either been permanently excluded from school or were at risk of permanently exclusion.

• In addition of the 9 females in this group four were either expectant mothers or had a child.

• 6 of 19 NEET young people in the cohort had been on youth court orders in the last 3 months, thus reflecting the relationship between offending and participation.

10. These barriers demonstrate the need for a holistic approach to looked

after young people’s participation. This integrated approach between YSS, Virtual School and Children’s Service has been one of the successes over the last 18 months and underpins improved outcomes for this group.

Young Person Case Example Jason was accommodated at the age of 15 in 2011 while in Year 11 at school. At the time he was accommodated he had also entirely disengaged from education. Virtual School and YSS worked together with Jason’s social worker to identify options and agree lead responsibility for meeting the aspirations identified in his aspects of his care plan. As a means of encouraging participation he was engaged in the Tall Ship scheme but, despite getting to undertake the voyage, disengaged just before the end of the project. He was subsequently offered the CSCS construction skills course in order to access work but failed to maintain this. A bespoke course at college (provided to satisfy 6 learners expressing an interest in this course) also failed to engage him beyond one week. He has gone in and out of casual work since then. Since September his placement has settled and he is now being supported in an application for the army and is now undertaking his CSCS card, which will help him to obtain work while he awaits the outcome of his application to the army. Placement stability and developing a consistent relationship with his social worker and youth support officer have been critical in establishing a platform for Jason to move into participation.

Page 62

of 8

Performance Outcomes

11. Performance over the last ten months has been on or above the target

of 80% of all young people in provision. Current performance represents a halving of the number of looked after young peopleare NEET compared with Aprilcertain young people are constantly represented as NEET due to the interdependency of participation with other key factors such as placement stability, suitable accommodation local to ETE provision, behaviour managementsystem.

12. Significant progress has been made in respect of those young people

placed out of county where outcomes now match those incurrent developments in bespoke provision (Skills Cfor Work: see appendixNEET young people into participation.

Conclusions:

13. Looked after young people will remain a

Support Service woService. Key areas to develop in order to further increase participation are:

• The development of a local re engagement programme, ‘Ready for Work’. The flexibility of this programmeengagement for young people where placements change and for those who have specific challenges

• Inter-authority agreements will ensure young people out of county can be linked into local services.

• Increased support forCare Service.

Performance Outcomes

Performance over the last ten months has been on or above the target all young people in provision. Current performance

represents a halving of the number of looked after young peopleare NEET compared with April 2011. However it is recognised that certain young people are constantly represented as NEET due to the nterdependency of participation with other key factors such as placement stability, suitable accommodation local to ETE provision, behaviour management and involvement with the criminal justice

Significant progress has been made in respect of those young people placed out of county where outcomes now match those in

lopments in bespoke provision (Skills Centre and Ready : see appendix) hold the prospect of moving the remaining

NEET young people into participation.

LAC Participation

Looked after young people will remain a very high priority for the Youth Support Service working alongside Virtual School and Children’s

Key areas to develop in order to further increase participation

The development of a local re engagement programme, ‘Ready for . The flexibility of this programme will mean continuedment for young people where placements change and for

those who have specific challenges.

authority agreements will ensure young people out of county can be linked into local services.

Increased support for care leavers in conjunction with the LeavCare Service.

Performance over the last ten months has been on or above the target all young people in provision. Current performance

represents a halving of the number of looked after young people who 2011. However it is recognised that

certain young people are constantly represented as NEET due to the nterdependency of participation with other key factors such as placement stability, suitable accommodation local to ETE provision,

and involvement with the criminal justice

Significant progress has been made in respect of those young people placed out of county where outcomes now match those in-county. The

entre and Ready ) hold the prospect of moving the remaining

y for the Youth and Children’s

Key areas to develop in order to further increase participation

The development of a local re engagement programme, ‘Ready for will mean continued

ment for young people where placements change and for

authority agreements will ensure young people out of county

in conjunction with the Leaving

Page 63

of 8

14. These developments offer the genuine prospect of full participation for all Surrey’s looked after children.

Financial and value for money implications

15. No new financial implications are contained in this report.

Equalities Implications

16.Equal opportunity for looked after young people to participate underpins the approach outlined in this report

Risk Management Implications

17. None identified

Implications for the Council’s Priorities or Community Strategy

18.The approach outlined supports the Council’s corporate parenting priorities

Recommendations:

19. That the Committee recognises the progress made in increasing

participation for looked after young people and endorses the developments outlined.

Next steps:

As outlined in the conclusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report contact: Ben Byrne Contact details: 01483 517014 Sources/background papers: None

Page 64

of 8

Appendix

Ready for Work Programme and Skills Centres At any one time, Surrey has between 800 and 1,000 young people who are not participating in education, training or employment. By 2015, it is our aim that all of our young people are participating. This is articulated in our Young People’s Employability Plan 2012-17. National information suggests that around 40% of young people who are NEET are participation ready and require limited support to access appropriate training or employment. For a further 40%, many of whom will have been NEET for six months or more, we have developed the Ready 4 Work (R4W) programme. Designed to be delivered by Youth Support Service staff, this programme has a core curriculum but will be tailored to the specific needs and opportunities in each borough, drawing upon the expertise of YSS practitioners to engage the hardest-to-reach young people. Much of the R4W curriculum will be delivered either in small groups, supported by work on a one-to-one basis, promoting the most effective engagement with our most vulnerable young people. The Ready for Work programme is in development in each of the districts and boroughs with some provision having started in most but with capacity being incrementally increased over the next six months. The R4W package for each young person will be bespoke reflecting the most suitable activities for them from a menu in their district or borough. An example of a well-developed borough offer is R4W activities available in Elmbridge. These include the GASP motor project run from Brooklands Museum, the Walton Bike Project (repairing bicycles provided by Surrey Police), and the Community Projects Team (known locally as ‘The Firm’) which has worked with Walton Charities and is developing a community orchard in West Molesey. All these activities are accredited and develop basic skills around team work and self-management, as well as specific vocational skills which will increase these young people’s employability. All young people have a Youth Support Officer supporting them through the R4W programme and onwards into sustainable education, training or employment. We estimate that the remaining 20% are in need of a different kind of provision, delivered in small to medium sized groups and providing a crucial transition to mainstream further education or employment. Skills Centres offer this provision in a familiar, non-threatening setting. The training is delivered by colleges and training providers from our youth centres and is tailored to the needs and aspirations of young people in each of our eleven boroughs, based on close working with the local YSS teams. The training offered in Skills Centres varies from area to area and may include vocational provision in practical disciplines such as bricklaying, catering or horticulture. Young people are given opportunities to gain short, work-focused qualifications which may represent passports to employment in some industries, such as hospitality. At its core Skill Centre delivery focuses on development of key employability skills, complemented by the offer of

Page 65

of 8

meaningful work placements and is closely aligned to employment opportunities available in each local area. Three year contracts have now been awarded for all Skills Centre borough packages. Five Centres are already open, with further centres to follow in January / February.

A summary of the Skill Centre contract awards is provided below. For more information, please contact Cass Hardy – [email protected]

Month Area Centre Provider

October Spelthorne Ashford Brooklands College

October Reigate & Banstead

Horley East Surrey College

October Runnymede Addlestone Brooklands College

October Elmbridge Walton Brooklands College

October Surrey Heath Old Dean NACRO

Jan/Feb Guildford Ash/Discovery or alternative (TBC)

Waverley Training

Jan/Feb Waverley TBC Waverley Training

Jan/Feb Woking Lakers Surrey Care Trust

Jan/Feb Epsom & Ewell Linton’s NESCOT

Jan/Feb Tandridge The Street East Surrey College

Jan/Feb Mole Valley The Malthouse East Surrey College

Ben Byrne: Head of Surrey Youth Support Service 06/12/12

Page 66


Page 1 of 4


19th December 2012

Update Internal Audit Report

(Looked After Children health and Dental Checks)

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services To provide an update on progress against recommendations contained within the internal audit of looked after children’s health assessments and dental checks

Introduction:

1. In May 2012 Corporate Audit undertook and evaluation of the

performance of services provided to looked after children with regard to their health assessments and dental checks

2. The Audit recommended 3 areas for improvement as follows:

• Recommendation 1-The service should consider undertaking an in-depth examination of potential areas of improvement related to this indicator, including costings and any identified remedial actions

• Recommendation 2-The service should consider changing the target profile for this indicator to relate more closely to the existing performance pattern

• Recommendation 3- The service should consider either including a holding document in a child’s file pending receipt of the written summary, or recording checks as completed only when the document has been received.

3. This report uses the following abbreviations LAC Looked After Child BLA Becomes looked After IHA Initial Health Assessment RHA Review Health Assessment CCG’s Clinical Commissioning Groups JCSG Joint Commissioning Steering Group NICE National Institute for Clinical Excellence RCN Royal College of Nursing CYP Children and Young people

Item 10

Page 67


Page 2 of 4

Context

4. As corporate parent it is the statutory responsibility of Surrey CC to

promote healthy outcomes for looked after children. As part of this statutory duty we must ensure that children who are looked after receive an IHA and RHA within prescribed timescales.

4.1 It is the statutory role of NHS Surrey to support Surrey CC in ensuring that the health assessments are undertaken. They contract this and other children’s health services within large ‘block contracts’. At present 3 providers deliver health assessment services to our LAC.

4.2 Following the introduction of the Health & Social Care Act 2012 this

responsibility held by NHS Surrey will transfer to the emerging CCG’s 4.3 Therefore, whilst we remain statutorily responsible for both the quality

and timeliness of health assessments we are unable to purchase or control the health service offered.

4.4 Through a number of forums, including the Corporate Parenting Board

(CPB) and Joint Commissioning Steering Group (JCSG) we continue to influence the service offered and since January 2012 have been working closely with health partners to improve the service offered.

Response to recommendations

5. Recommendation 1. The service should consider undertaking an in-

depth examination of potential areas of improvement related to this indicator, including costing’s and any identified remedial actions

5.1 An in-depth service review of the health assessment service was

undertaken by the joint commissioning team of Children’s Services Surrey CC which involved consultations with looked after children, their parents and carer’s. It also included a number of workshops with health and social care professionals. Following the consultations a number of proposals were developed as follows.

5.2 Working with the NHS Commissioning lead, a revised child centred

health assessment pathway was agreed. The pathway places the child at the centre of the service and represents agreement between partners to reduce some of the bureaucracy within the current service.

5.2 NHS Surrey are at present holding contractual negotiations with their

health providers to implement the revised service. This will see a lead provider identified and a more consistent approach implemented between services.

5.3 To support this and to enhance the information sharing Surrey CC has

authorised the designated LAC heath professionals access to ICS and introduced weekly sessions with the Designated Doctor to discuss children who are looked after. This will facilitate a reduction in the

Page 68


Page 3 of 4

amount of paperwork transferred between organisations and enable the Designated Doctor to gain a more holistic knowledge of the child.

6. Recommendation 2 The service should consider changing the target

profile for this indicator to relate more closely to the existing performance pattern

6.1 The performance pattern of the previous three years was examined in

detail and a revised target profile devised and introduced. This reflects the current preponderance of annual health checks towards the end of the reporting year (January – March). Over time the intention is to gradually move towards a more even spread of health checks throughout the year, as our Looked After population changes and the timing of annual health checks links more closely to the point in the year the child became looked after.

7. Recommendation 3 The service should consider either including a

holding document in a child’s file pending receipt of the written summary, or recording checks as completed only when the document has been received.

7.1 Since June we have implemented a new recording process on ICS/

Protocol. This records when the forms are sent, when they were due and when the examination happens. Health checks are recorded as being completed when confirmed by Health professionals. Once the summary and plans are received from Health this is noted on the social care recording system and they are placed on file. Further development is planned that will enable us to monitor the time taken for the health check process to take place and, for newly looked after children, whether we are making progress in reducing the time taken to request, arrange and carry out the initial health assessments. This will help to improve health outcomes for looked after children.

Conclusions:

8. Surrey CC continue to monitor and evaluate the changes introduced to

capture service improvements. 9. NHS Surrey as commissioning leads, continue their discussions with the

3 providers. Financial and value for money implications 10. None. The development of the Health Assessment process is separate

from this audit.

Page 69


Page 4 of 4

Equalities Implications 11. The Children’s Service ensures that all Children, Young People and their

families are treated fairly, equitably and with respect for their cultural needs. The Children’s, Schools and Families Directorate Equality Group monitors key indicators relating to Children’s Services on a regular basis.

Risk Management Implications 12. Risk Management implications are clearly stated on the audit document. Implications for the Council’s Priorities or Community Strategy 13. This will contribute to the priority to ‘Strengthen the support for

vulnerable children’; in particular to contribute to improving health outcomes for looked after children.

Recommendations:

14. The Select Committee note the contents of this report.

Next steps:

Identify future actions and dates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report contact: Liz Ball, Head of Performance and Support Contact details: 01372 832536

[email protected] Sources/background papers: A01900 / 2011/12 – Performance Management Data Quality (Looked After Children health and Dental Checks)

Page 70

of 8


19 December 2012

Children, Schools and Families Directorate Performance Report Card:

September 2012

Purpose of the report: Performance Management To submit to the Children and Families Select Committee the most recent Children’s Services monthly performance report card supported by a narrative.

Introduction

1 The performance report cards summarise Directorate-wide indicators across

performance, staffing, finance, customer feedback and a summary of work volume and actions to address any areas of concern emanating from monthly performance meetings conducted in services.

2 This report summarises Surrey’s Children’s Service performance under this

framework as at the end of September 2012 and should be read with reference to Appendix A the Children’s Service Performance Report Card: Summary for Select Committee. The Directorate Leadership Team discussed September performance on 14 November 2012.

3 The report cards use the following abbreviations:

CA Core assessment CL Care Leavers CP Child Protection CPP Child Protection Plan CYP Children and Young People DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families DOT Direction of Travel EMS Database used by Surrey to hold education related data EOY End of Year IA Initial assessment NI National Indicator LAC Looked After Children PI Performance Indicator RAG Red, Amber, Green (relates performance on an indicator to its target) SEN Special Educational Needs YTD Year to Date UASC Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Child/Children

Item 11

Page 71

of 8

Performance this month

1. September context The volume of work at the front door remained low in September. In August the lower volume of work at the front door enabled the teams to reduce the number of ongoing assessments. The continued low level in September enabled the teams to maintain the reduced levels of ongoing assessments.

Contacts from education sources had declined in August and then rose in September as expected due to the school closures over the summer. The contacts from the Police however declined in September and this led to the numbers going down in both August and September (graph two). Higher contact numbers are expected in October.

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Contacts 2010-11 Contacts 2011-12 Contacts 2012-13

5391

51085083

3865

4663

4254

5103 4633

5537 52125711

5119

4763

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

number

Contacts Contact trend

Contacts received in the month

(September 2011 - September 2012)

Graph Two – Number of Contacts over 13 months (figures as at 1 October 2012)

Graph One – Number of Contacts by month (figures as at 1 October 2012)

Graph 1

Graph 2

Page 72

of 8

The proportion of Contacts that were converted into referrals in September was just over 18%, as can be seen from graph three below. Over the last few months, contact numbers and the percentage of contacts becoming referrals have been similar to the same period last year.

Referrals over the last two months have remained low but this is not expected to remain the case.

The proportion of referrals that were re-referrals reduced on last month. The local areas are continuing to engage with their partner organisations to build and maintain stronger relationships and understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities. This can take the form of attending local area partnership meetings or joint meetings with school confederations bringing together Child Protection Liaison Officers, Head teachers and Social Workers. One of the main messages from meetings of this nature is that better communication on an individual basis is the key to resolving most other issues, with all parties fully committed to better outcomes for vulnerable children and their families. This work will hopefully lead to partner organisations feeling more confident to manage thresholds appropriately and supporting more children through multi-agency plans within their communities.

16%

18%

23% 23% 24%22%

19%19%

24%

19%18.4%

17.1%

18.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


percentage

Percentage of Contacts becoming Referrals(September 2011 - September 2012)

% Contacts becoming referrals % Contacts becoming referrals trend

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Referrals 2010-11 Referrals 2011-12 Referrals 2012-13

Graph Three – Percentage of Contacts becoming referrals over 13

months (figures as at 1 October 2012)

Graph 3

Graph 4

Page 73

of 8

Graph five below shows the number of referrals by the source of the original contact. The ‘Other: Org’ category includes a range of organisations, including probation, other authorities and the voluntary sector. In order to allow greater clarity only the main groups are shown here (some data labels have been omitted so that the graph is more legible). A project group is in place to develop the plans for a multi-agency approach to managing the Police referrals in their Central Referral Unit (CRU). A meeting has been arranged for December that will continue this work and the hope is that there could be a significant reduction in the referrals from the Police to the Children’s Service once the new CRU approach is in place.

118 125 127

187173

198

269

127

156

2

128

164

160

149186

292

347

387

243

321

346

279

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Nu

mb

er o

f re

ferra

ls

Number of referrals by sourceSeptember 2011 - September 2012

Education Health Other:Org Police

Graph Five – Number of Referrals by Source (figures as at 1 October 2012)

Graph 5

Page 74

of 8

Assessments The lower referral levels meant that the teams were able to improve the timeliness of the assessments completed; both initial and core assessment timescales improving. The proportion of ongoing assessments that were 'late' at the end of the month also reduced. Several of the areas reported challenging levels of staff turnover in September although some of these teams have new staff with agreed start dates. Recruitment activity is continuing across the service but the recruitment of experienced social workers is proving challenging in at least one area due to factors such as accommodation costs.

67.665.3

52.9

64.2

48.0

59.7

66.863.1 61.9

53.956.7

71.0

62.2

460 442 389 546 323 447 631 897 639 723 691 600 4330

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep YTD

Percentage of IAs in timescale

Target Surrey Stat.Neighbour 10/11

56.2

68.4

56.259.0

61.658.9

54.7

68.1 66.4

59.9

51.5 53.1

59.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept YTD

Percentage of CAs in timescale

Target Surrey Stat.Neighbour 10/11

Graph 6

Graph 7

Graph Six – Percentage of Initial Assessments completed within 10

working days (figures as at 1 October 2012)

Graph Seven – Percentage of Core Assessments completed within 35 working days (figures as at 1 May 2012)

Page 75

of 8

Child Protection

Since July there has been a large decrease in the number of children starting to be subject to a child protection plan. Over the same period there has been an upward trend in the numbers ceasing to be subject to a plan. The result being a decline in the number of children subject to a plan. At an area level the experience has been more variable with two of the areas showing rises in numbers and two decreases. From the perspective of the Safeguarding Children's Unit and ICPC timescales, the reduced numbers of ICPC conferences and the 15 ring fenced initial child protection conferences each week have resulted in an improvement in performance to 46%, just below our target of 50-60%. The large increase in numbers that we have experienced means that our targets for ‘children who have had two or more placements’ and ‘children subject to a plan for 24 months or more’ need review, set as they were when numbers were much lower and expected to remain relatively stable. The events of the last 18 months, which saw the large increase in our numbers of children subject to a child protection plan mean that the targets have been overtaken by events. For example, in the 10/11 year around 520 children ceased to be subject to a CPP, last year this number had risen to 730 and this year this number looks set to be higher. At the same time the number of children who have ceased to be subject to a plan after 24 months has reduced. Last years’ figure of 43 gave us performance of around 6%. Our current projections are for this to reduce further and against a higher total number of ceases this will mean our performance will be lower still. For both these indicators it is better to be low but there is an expectation that there will usually be some cases where it is quite appropriate that a repeat child protection plan is started or the plan lasts longer than 24 months.

696 713745

780 779 782 794

849 844 878920

941 928

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Number of Child Protection plans at the end of the month(September 2011 - September 2012)

Surrey CPP trend

Graph Eight – Number of children subject to a Child Protection Plan

(figures as at 30 September 2012)

Graph 8

Page 76

of 8

5. Looked after Children. Graph 9 shows the number of looked after children. Overall there is a gradual upward trend. This is in line with the national trend and other indicators such as the increased numbers of court applications reported by CAFCASS.

Just under 60% of our Looked After children are aged 10-17. There were also 60 children aged less than a year at the end of September. The numbers of children who have ceased to be looked after due to adoption or SGO reached 42 at the end of September, a substantially higher figure than at the same point last year. Personal Education Plans (PEP) performance decreased to 71%. This was due to a combination of the summer holidays and schools being very clear in September that they did not have the capacity to hold PEP meetings. The teams are working with the schools in their areas to complete the PEPs as soon as possible and CPOG has agreed that the service needs to work towards an October/ April PEP cycle. Health and dental check performance is slightly behind target (it is an incremental target). At the 27 September performance in dental checks was standing at 26%, three percentage points above target. Health checks stood at 13%. In relation to this indicator, over the course of the year, request forms are required for around 550 children. Some of these will require two request forms because under 5 year old LAC are required to have two medical checks a year. The teams report that they have sent over 55% of these health check request forms to health colleagues. The area teams are focusing on improving dental check performance, completing the remaining health check request forms for current LAC by the end of November and completing request forms for new LAC as they become due. A separate email address has been provided by Health colleagues for initial health assessments (IHA) to help improve the timeliness for these assessments.

782 790 793 791

813 815806 800

815823

837821

844

600

650

700

750

800

850

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep

2012

number of LAC LAC trend

Number of LAC

September 2011 - September 2012

Graph Nine – Numbers of Looked after children

(figures as at 28 September 2012)

Graph 9

Page 77

of 8

Conclusions

Financial and value for money implications

6 To emerge from discussions arising from the report card Equalities Implications

7 The Children’s Service ensures that all Children, Young People and their families are treated fairly, equitably and with respect for their cultural needs. The Children’s, Schools and Families Directorate Equality Group monitors key indicators relating to Children’s Services on a regular basis.

Risk Management Implications

8 To emerge from discussions arising from the report card Implications for the Council’s Priorities or Community Strategy/Local Area Agreement Targets

9 Implementation of the Performance Management Framework was a requirement of the Improvement Notice and an area of specific focus to be presented to the Select Committee at each meeting

Recommendations:

That the Committee scrutinises the Surrey Children's Service performance as at the end of September 2012.

Next steps:

The Select Committee has forward planned the performance reports at each of its meetings and scrutinises detailed thematic reports frequently throughout the year to ensure both sustained performance improvement and service quality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report contact: Liz Ball, Head of Performance and Support Contact details: 01372 832536

[email protected] Sources/background papers: Appendix A CS Performance Report Card Summary for Dec 2012 Select Committee Appendix B Health & Dental checks DQ audit MAP update 20121114

Page 78

Indicator/ Information

Stat.

Neighbour

10/11

Surrey

Outturn

11/12

July August September Year to Date Target

Surrey

Direction of

Travel #

Initial assessment completed in the month that

were completed within 10 working days of

referral [ %age ] (NI 59)

80.3% 61.9% 53.9% 56.7% 71.0% 61.7% 75% - 100% �Core assessments completed in the month that

were completed within 35 working days

[ %age ] (NI 60)

75.7% 61.7% 59.9% 51.5% 53.1% 63.3% 80% - 100% �

Number of CYP subject to a Child Protection

Plan (snapshot at the month end)

633

(~based on

average rate)

798 923 941 928 928Non-targeted

indicatorMore

Children becoming the subject of a Child

Protection Plan, in the month, for a second or 12.6% 14.1% 3.9% 14.5% 4.6% 8.3% 10% - 15% �

Children's Service Performance Report Card: Summary for December 2012 Select Committee - September 2012 Data

On or better than target More than 5% points worse than targetUp to 5% points worse than target

G

Protection Plan, in the month, for a second or

subsequent time (NI 65)

12.6% 14.1% 3.9% 14.5% 4.6% 8.3% 10% - 15% �

Child protection plans that ceased in the month,

after lasting two years or more (NI 64)6.1% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 4.0% 5.5% - 8.5% �

Total Number of LAC

(snapshot at the month end)

886

(~based on

average rate)

806 837 821 844 844Non-targeted

indicatorMore

Health and dental checks

(Cumulative from 1 April 2010 to end of the

month)

87.6% 82.6% 8.5% 14.2% 19.3% 19.3%

85%

(23% by

September)�

% LAC with an in-date PEP (excluding respite)

(snapshot at the month end)

not collected

nationally86.0% 87.4% 83.0% 71.0% 71.0% 100% �

# Surrey Direction of Travel compares this months performance with the previous month. Where the latest value is higher than the previous month the arrow points up and if performance is going in the right

direction in relation to the target, the arrow will be green. If performance is going in the wrong direction, the arrow will be red. The reverse applies where the latest value is lower than the previous month.

~Figures 'based on average rate' use the SN average rate per 10,000 population applied to Surrey's 0-17 population, to work out the number we would need if we were to have the same rate. (ONS 2010 mid year

estimates)

Page 79

of 3


19th December 2012

Budget Monitoring 2012/13

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets This report sets out the current forecast position on the budget for Children’s Services as at the end of October 2012.

Introduction:

1. The annex to this report sets out the latest financial forecast position for

the service and the number of social care agency placements at the end of October 2012.

2. An update on the achievement of the savings against the MTFP target

savings is explained in the report.

Budget Headlines:

3. Children’s Services are projecting a £2.2m overspend at year-end

on an annual budget of £82m. This is an increase of £0.2m compared to the end of July position reported to the Children & Families Select Committee previously.

4. The most significant overspends within the Children’s Services budget

are being caused by the increasing numbers of children with a child protection plan requiring services. Area staffing budgets are also being put under significant pressure as additional staff and agency personnel are required to deal with the increasing volumes.

5. The overspends in Area staffing and care packages (+£1.5m), agency

placements (+£1.4m) and foster care and adoption allowances (+£0.7m), are all as a result of increasing volumes. These increasing volumes in Surrey are very much in line with the national trend.

6. As recommended by the Children & Families Select Committee,

additional funding of £1.2m per annum for the next 3 years has been approved to increase the levels of staffing in the Area teams. This has

Item 12

Page 81

of 3

been funded from the Directorate underspend which has been put into a reserve for the next 3 years to be drawn down by the service. It is also recognised that further work is required around early help and prevention services, as part of the Public Value Programme to build on the work already undertaken and continue to improve the management of demand. Volumes are being carefully monitored and additional funding has been requested as part of the 2013-2018 Medium Term Financial Plan.

7. Annex 1 presents more details of these and other budget variances

across the service.

Progress Against Savings Targets

8. The service has a total 2012/13 MTFP savings target of £2.2 million.

Specific areas for savings were identified as part of the medium term financial planning process.

9. Currently, of the £2.2m savings, £0.3m savings from Safeguarding is

forecast not to be achieved.

Conclusions:

10. Children’s Service are forecast to be on track to achieve their specific

savings targets but are projecting a £2.2m overspend in other areas of the budget. Volume pressures, particularly around child protection, are forcing the overspend. The increase in demand and costs is being closely monitored by the service and is reflected in the year end forecasts.

Equalities Implications 11. Any impacts of budget monitoring actions are evaluated by the service

as they implement the management actions. Risk Management Implications 12. Risk implications are considered throughout the budget monitoring

process and highlighted in the budget monitoring report and in the service risk register. All budgets are assessed as high, medium or low risk according to their size, volatility, complexity and profile. Budget monitoring effort and resource is directed in proportion to the risk involved.

Implications for the Council’s Priorities or Community Strategy/Local Area Agreement Targets 13. Any impacts on the Council’s priorities are considered by the service as

they implement the management actions.

Page 82

of 3

Recommendation:

14. That the Select Committee consider the content of this report and

attached annexes.

Next steps:

Regular Budget Monitoring Reports will be presented to the Select Committee. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report contact: Paula Chowdhury, Strategic Finance Manager,

Finance Service, Change & Efficiency Directorate Contact details: 01483 517984 [email protected] Sources/background papers: October Budget Monitoring Report

Page 83

Annex 1

Budget

Year End

Projection

Projected

over/under At 1 April

At start

of month

At end

of month

Projected

year end

£'000 £'000 £'000

Looked After Children and Children in Need:

Referral, Assessment & Care

Staffing 15,317 15,890 573

Care Packages 3,717 4,636 919

19,034 20,526 1,492

Children with Disabilities

Staffing 2,078 1,983 -95

Care Packages 2,568 2,690 122

Specialist Care Delivery 4,852 4,718 -134

In-House Respite Provision 1,330 1,355 25

Agency Placements 1,968 2,355 387 17 16 16 16

12,796 13,101 305

Care Services

In-House Fostering & Adoption: Staffing 4,227 4,040 -187

In-House Foster Carers and Adopters: Allowances 10,692 11,435 743

In-House Residential Homes 4,140 4,118 -22

Agency Placements 10,859 11,895 1,036 183 202 200 202

Leaving Care & Asylum Seekers 3,739 4,053 314

33,657 35,541 1,884

Child & Adolescent Mental Health & HOPE Services 2,955 2,936 -19

Partnership & Preventative Services 1,506 1,202 -304

Safeguarding Services 1,861 2,256 395

Children's Central Service Management 4,474 3,112 -1,362

Strategy & Commissioning 948 892 -56

Resources 4,724 4,567 -157

TOTAL 81,955 84,133 2,178 200 218 216 218

Staffing/FTE Spend

Full Year

Budget

Year End

Projection

Projected

under/ over

Staffing establishment (£000s) 40,645 41,185 540

Source: July Budget Monitoring

Key Comments in end October Budget Monitoring

Children's Services Budget and volume monitoring as at the end of October 2012

The main variations contributing to the £2.2m projected overspend are in the following areas:-

* Looked After Children and Children In Need : Staff and Care - these budgets are under pressure due to the combined impact of increased

referral rates, the requirement to cover statutory work with agency staff in vacant positions, the high numbers of Looked After Children in

proceedings and related court order supervised contact costs and the high numbers of children with Child Protection Plans. Projected

overspends remain, as last month, £0.6m on Staffing and £0.9m on Care.

* Children with Disabilities : expected that, bottom-line, the budget will balance and the required savings will be made.

* Agency Placements (Children with Disabilities and Care Services) : Volumes remain volatile. Overspend (+£1.0m)on non-CwD agency

placements is due to increased volumes of child protection cases requiring services.

* Fostering and Adoption : a projected overspend of £0.7m, mainly on allowances, is the result of continued growth in the number of foster

carers required as a result of volume increases.

* Leaving Care & Asylum Seekers : additional numbers with no recourse to public funds causing extra pressure of £0.3m.

* Safeguarding Service : the projected overspend of £0.4m reflects difficulties in achieving an MTFP efficiency in this area of £0.3m. Staffing

changes are planned to alleviate some of the pressure, though wider adjustments will be needed to balance the budget entirely.

* Childrens Service Management & Central Budgets - the sum of overspends above is partially offset by £1.4m projected underspend in this

area.

Expenditure Service Volume

Page 85

Children & Families Select Committee

Documents

Transcript of Children & Families Select Committee