Agenda item

For the Select Committee to consider a report regarding the Children’s Services Transformation Programme.

Contributors:

Cllr Anita Cranmer, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children & Education

John Macilwraith, Corporate Director, Children’s Services

Errol Albert, Service Director - Transformation

The Chairman invited Cllr Anita Cranmer, Cabinet Member for Children’s and Education, Richard Nash, Service Director – Children’s Social Care and Errol Albert, Service Director – Transformation, to speak on this item.

In their presentation, the following points were highlighted:

·       The transformation programme was prompted by a rise in demand for services, including higher referral rates compared to similar areas. Nationally, there was a 32% increase in child protection plans, and the number of children in care was projected to surpass 100,000 in the next decade.

·       The council acknowledged the need to improve risk management and support for children with emerging needs, creating an environment conducive to effective social work by addressing caseloads and providing adequate support. Buckinghamshire Council’s Children’s Services have improved significantly and were striving to achieve a good rating from OFSTED.

·       The comprehensive programme of change would be implemented to ensure that children and young people were at the centre of decision-making at every stage of the process, moving away from traditional practices. The proposed changes aimed to consider new demands and emerging risks, minimise the need for repetitive storytelling by families, provide continuity of support, and utilise local services effectively. Any changes requiring job transitions would involve formal consultation.

·       A cultural workforce framework was being established to ensure consistency in values, expectations, and support provided to social workers. The goal was to recruit and retain social workers successfully by focusing on staff development and well-being.

·       A triangle model was used to illustrate the focus on strengthening support at the early stage to prevent concerns from escalating. The narrow end represented statutory duties related to child protection and safeguarding, while the wider end represented the aim to reduce the need for intensive intervention. The middle part involved targeted intensive family help through multi-agency teams, including qualified social workers and family support workers. The goal was to identify and support families at an earlier stage by providing easily accessible services, which would reduce the need for intensive statutory interventions such as child protection plans, care proceedings, or removal from home.

·       The transformation journey was already underway, with phase one focusing on early help pathways and preventing the escalation of needs. Services within the organisation and external partners were being assessed for their potential contributions. This included developing smaller, cohesive multi-agency teams that are attuned to local communities, including schools and voluntary community partners. This shift also allowed for the identification of a trusted lead professional who could develop relationships with families and ensure they receive the right services. Collaboration with partners was crucial to provide continuity of support. Phase two would involve wider services and their alignment with the model. Discussions and engagements were taking place with various boards and partners, and staff feedback and ideas were being gathered to shape the system and identify their roles in achieving the desired outcomes.

·       Strategic commissioning was also a priority, especially in the challenging area of children's placements. Efforts were being made to recruit and support foster carers, strengthen the adoption offer, and prevent children and young people from entering care whenever possible.

During discussion, comments and questions raised by the Committee included:  

·        The Chairman commended the inclusion of social worker wellbeing in the programme, particularly in light of social work's sensitive and distressing nature.

·       Concerns were raised about the increasing number of referrals nationally and within the county. Mr Nash explained that not all referrals are negative, as it was crucial to be informed of any changes in a child or young person's circumstances.  The definition of re-referrals had changed, and process issues resulted in a false increase in recorded figures. Additionally, increased pressures on families in recent years contributed to some children and young people returning for support. Re-referrals could also arise if previous work had not been thorough enough. Mr Nash emphasised the importance of gaining a detailed understanding of re-referral figures in shaping future actions.

·       A Member emphasized the need for flexibility in recruiting trusted lead professionals and suggested considering school staff, including safeguarding leads and trained members, for the role. Mr Albert agreed and stressed that the trusted lead professional role should not be limited to one person or role. He acknowledged the important role of schools in supporting children, young people, and families, emphasizing their established relationships. Additionally, he highlighted that everyone has a responsibility to support and safeguard children, and volunteers with lived experience and community connections can have a significant positive impact on families. Overall, flexibility and inclusivity in selecting trusted lead professionals were considered crucial.

·       Concerns about potentially losing the positive outcomes achieved through the transformation of early health services in 2019 were raised. The stressful nature of previous staff consultations and the need to prioritise staff well-being were highlighted. Mr Albert explained that both the pandemic and the new challenges that children and young people faced necessitated innovative approaches. While commitments were made during the previous consultation, the focus now was on ensuring that services were appropriate for specific areas and building on the successful aspects of the previous work. Ongoing mapping and collaboration with colleagues in other parts of the organisation were part of the efforts to achieve this.

·       A Member inquired about the planning process for the locality support teams, asking about the factors that would determine their locations and team sizes. Mr Albert acknowledged the need to align the transformation of the teams with information from other parts of the organisation, such as the Better Buckinghamshire Programme and the Opportunity Bucks Programme, as well as considerations of wards and their levels of deprivation. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that services were accessible and tailored to local needs, which would be achieved through ongoing discussions with colleagues from various parts of the organisation. He noted the different challenges faced by families in various areas, highlighting the need to engage with the right individuals and develop local solutions that address the prevalent needs in each area.

·       To provide an example of a positive outcome from the transformation programme, Mr Albert mentioned the availability of parenting classes and other parenting support resources that have made a positive difference, especially for families dealing with adolescent behaviours. He highlighted that these services, if accessed by families, can prevent the need for a referral to children's social care and the allocation of a social worker. Mr Albert emphasised the importance of building on such services and ensuring they were tailored to the specific needs of local areas as they move forward with the transformation.

·       A Member inquired about the involvement of the voluntary sector in the early help partnership. Mr Albert acknowledged the significance of voluntary organisations in Buckinghamshire, noting that many of them are unknown but offer diverse services to children, young people, and adults. He emphasised the ongoing process of scoping and discovering these organisations' expertise through events, surveys, and individual meetings. The aim was to actively involve them in the transformation, seeking their input and exploring how their services can address family challenges effectively. The intention was not just to save money but to tap into the valuable expertise of the voluntary sector and ensure their meaningful participation in the initiative.

·       The use of the term ‘family’ in the proposed operating model was questioned, as it could exclude certain individuals with diverse circumstances. Mr Albert acknowledged the importance of inclusivity and assured that changes to terminology could still be made. He emphasised the need to communicate the transformation in a way that includes everyone and promised to give further thought to the issue.

·       It was suggested that a separate model for prevention be formulated in addition to the statutory model, highlighting a need for effective communication, actions, and cultural change among staff. Mr Albert explained that family issues were dynamic and required a system to support families throughout their circumstances. The aim was to create a system that combines qualified statutory roles with early help family support roles, providing consistent support and addressing issues comprehensively. The objective was to establish a one-stop-shop approach that manages family journeys effectively and reduces the need for repeated referrals.

·       A Member suggested conducting case studies to showcase both good practices and challenges faced during the transformation process. Mr Albert explained that they were already working on case studies with staff, seeking their input and ideas. They highlighted the importance of recognising the expertise and skills of non-qualified social workers who often have valuable experience in working with families.

·       The need for a unified approach to providing support services was highlighted, suggesting the need for further budget allocations within schools to address emerging needs prior to escalation. Mr Albert acknowledged the presence of existing resources, such as school link workers serving as family support workers, who successfully diverted referrals to the appropriate channels. The speaker mentioned ongoing discussions with school heads to explore and utilise available resources, emphasising the need for a support system to ensure the effectiveness of such interventions.

·       A Member asked about the number of envisaged locality support teams and whether officers had visited successful teams in Hampshire and Hertfordshire to learn from their best practices. In response, Mr Albert acknowledged the importance of partnership, communication, and viewing the children's workforce as a cohesive group. He mentioned that his team had engaged in discussions with other areas, including Hertfordshire and Hampshire, to understand their successful approaches and improved outcomes. The goal was to create a similar positive model in Buckinghamshire to enhance recruitment and retention of the workforce. Based on initial modelling and data analyses, there would possibly be 21 different locality teams, though consultation and engagement with stakeholders were needed to determine the final number. Based on the Committee’s previous inquiry into social worker recruitment and retention, a locality-based model would have a positive impact on recruitment and retention, as social workers valued reduced travel times and stronger relationships with the families they work with.

Cllr Wilson attended the Committee to speak to his question, which had been submitted with notice as follows:

“The Children’s Services Update presented to Cabinet in May 2023 has provided a vivid and transparent description of the challenges facing Children’s Services. The Update notes in the risk section that there are significant financial pressures associated with a number of areas detailed within the report, particularly pertinent to the mandated transfer scheme for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children, demand pressures faced across the Service and the reliance on agency staff due to the significant social worker recruitment challenges.

It outlines a Transformation Programme that it deems fundamental to improve service practices and progress beyond the ‘requires improvement to be good’ Ofsted judgment. It also believes the Programme is critical to securing a permanent and stable workforce. This will involve moving to a locality-based model of delivery to rebalance workforce skills and knowledge from appropriately qualified practitioners to provide the appropriate support for children and young people.

In paragraph 3.9 of the Update report, it briefly states that the locality-based model will also support the service to address the financial pressures and to deliver services within this financial envelope of the medium-term financial plan (MTFP).

In order to meet the Council’s statutory duties, there was a clear need to substantially increase spending on Children’s Services in 22-23 due to the well-documented demand and cost pressures. Full year numbers have yet to be reported, but 22-23 will close at £5m over Budget. The ongoing pressures taken into the 23-24 Budget outline a further increase of £13.3m versus the original Council Budget/MTFP. The Budget for 23-24 was for one year only, so there is no updated MTFP for 24-25 and beyond, other than that published in 21-22 which would now appear to be considerably outdated given the substantial rise in demand and complexity, as well as staffing costs.

What are the detailed financial projections for the Transformation Plan in Children’s Services by year and cost centre that demonstrate how the Service will address the financial pressures and deliver services within this financial envelope of the MTFP, ensuring that the locality-based model can meet all its statutory service requirements, improve service practice, secure a Good or better Ofsted rating and secure a permanent and stable workforce? How will these substantial cumulative savings be delivered over and above all existing saving programmes assumed in the Better Buckinghamshire and subsequent reviews?

The Director’s responded as follows to Councillor Wilson’s questions:

There is corporate and political recognition that we must work differently in order to realise our shared ambition to deliver good quality services to children. The service has refined throughout its improvement journey a comprehensive self-assessment from which a whole system Children’s Services Transformation Programme has been developed. A significant part of the Transformation Programme aims to:

·       ensure children and families are supported at the earliest possible stage through effective partnership interventions that improve outcomes without the need for escalation to more intrusive statutory support.

·       reduce hand off points and minimise assessments for families and enable the system to respond to changing risks by developing a new model be based on multi-disciplinary locality-based working that is closer to the communities, boosting the contribution of partners.

·        

Savings targets (as detailed below) associated with the transformation relate to the reduction of additional agency staff who have been employed to support the service in meeting additional demand post pandemic. The move to a locality-based model will (a) mean the service is better placed to manage demand as the whole system will enable children to receive a more consistent, purposeful and child centred approach wherever they are on their journey of need from early help through to being in care, and (b) support the service to address the financial pressures relating to staffing and to deliver services within the staffing financial envelope of the medium-term financial plan.

In addition to the delivery of the above, there are additional savings targets attached to the Strategic Commissioning workstream of the transformation programme. Since October 2021, it has become increasingly difficult to find placements, particularly for children aged 12 plus with complex needs. As a result, a revised Placement Sufficiency Strategy has been developed that accurately reflects the current position and clearly articulates the service’s plans to increase the availability of provision for our children and young people that meet their needs and provides them with a safe place to live and thrive within Buckinghamshire.  Savings associated with this workstream (as set out below) relate to delivering the actions set out in this strategy which will in turn reduce the number of high-cost placements for children looked after. Full business cases for the £1,325m saving relating to the increase in the availability of inhouse placements still need to be developed and agreed through the Service Improvement Board (Better Buckinghamshire Programme). Due to the national challenges in placement sufficiency and the impact on placement availability and unit cost,

our placement budgets continue to be at risk in the current financial year and across the MTFP.

·       Mr Nash noted that the overall aim of the transformation programme was to support children and families at an early stage, reduce assessments and handoff points, and implement a multidisciplinary locality-based working model. The savings targets involved reducing reliance on agency staff and strategic commissioning efforts to improve placement sufficiency. He also acknowledged the challenges in finding suitable placements for older children with complex needs and the associated budget risks. Mr Nash assured that a more comprehensive written response with financial tables would be provided to address the specific financial projections requested.

ACTION: RN

The Chairman thanked the presenters for their attendance and participation.