Agenda item

For the Select Committee to receive an update on the progress of the Children’s Services Transformation Programme.

Contributors:

Cllr Anita Cranmer, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services

Errol Albert, Service Director, Transformation and Improvement, Children’s Services

Cllr Cranmer introduced Errol Albert, Service Director, Children's Services - Transformation and Improvement. She noted that the transformation programme was a long-term programme of work for the service.

Errol Albert explained that at his last appearance before the committee, he set out plans for the initial phase of service transformation. This report was to update the Committee on progress within those plans.  The report included details of the rationale for change including increased demand, increasing complexity of cases, national reforms and the general overview of the service.

The report also detailed the feedback on the first phase of transformation, the key principles of which were:

1.      A movement towards locality-based teams

2.      Teams would be smaller, cohesive and multi-agency

3.      Trusted lead professionals to work with families to provide timely support

4.      A one-service approach to be paramount

This was a lengthy programme and there was still much to do. Family Hubs were significant for early help and support. Volunteers played a useful role.

In response to Councillors’ questions during the following discussion several points were raised:

·       Errol Albert outlined that in children’s services, the focus should be  on early intervention. Families’ needs were dynamic. With community support early on, it may have been possible to keep some children out of higher-tiered intervention such as the criminal justice system.  There are instances where referrals have been made where help could have been provided earlier. A wide range of issues presented to the service ranging from speech and language difficulties to family relationship problems. Seventy-five local authorities were quite advanced in organising Family Hubs and Buckinghamshire Council could learn from these. Where children were concerned, it was vital to intervene before a problem becomes a crisis.

·       Errol Albert explained that the Transformation Board has oversight of the action plan. A significant part of phase one was the re-structure of internal staff. HR was an integral part of this and form part of the membership of the Transformation Board.  Performance monitoring would be measured via several sources of data, for example from the police, health providers and the voluntary sector. Regular contact was maintained with DfE and OFSTED via inspections and annual conversations. The aim was to lower referral rates and re-referral rates. The lived experience of young people also would also be studied.

·       John McIlwraith pointed out that transformation updates would be shared with Cabinet every six months. The select committee might wish to see more focussed information on particular areas of the transformation programme.

·       Errol Albert explained that there could be several indicators of success. Currently, several teams involved with hand-offs of cases to each other and one assessment could involve three teams. Children have fed back that there are too many changes of social workers and that they have to repeat their story. It was important that young people develop a relationship with one trusted professional. A measure of success would be a lower number of hand-offs and an increased number of young people remaining with their birth families. When alternatives to a referral are widely used, this would also be an indicator of success.

·       Errol Albert acknowledged that there has been a  turnover of social workers and this would have an impact on the number of handoffs. He noted that this problem must be seen as part of the national picture. It will be a positive for social workers to know that they will belong to a small multi-disciplinary team with families at the centre.

·       Errol Albert explained that transformation involves the whole system It would be important to enhance communication between agencies. Where possible, multi-agency partners would attend the same training and briefing programmes. The service would be talking to schools about a shared space, which was an exciting opportunity.

·       Errol Albert explained that all statutory duties and processes would be maintained during this transformation process. Families who were already in the system as the service was changed it is hoped would not be adversely affected. The locality model would mean that a family support worker will stay with the families alongside a social worker and  other agencies. There would be no change to the way that safeguarding referrals from the community, school and volunteers were handled. In addition, the change in structure, every effort being made to maintain continuity to avoid  a child having a new social worker. Staff are most likely to remain in their current area; the teams would just be split into smaller localities. Children and young people would be asked for feedback on the process.

·       John McIlwraith answered a Member’s question about the value of Teaching Assistants (TAs). He noted that TAs did a tremendous job and the aim was to recruit and retain as many as possible as they tended to help the most vulnerable children. He explained that the work of TA’s is not strategically owned. Links would be made with headteachers to explore and develop opportunities for TA’s such as  promoting to a senior TA positions and looking at other opportunities within services for children across the county. School head teachers often fed back that once TAs had acquired a skills set, they pursued a career outside schools. A Member noted out that TAs were employed on a Buckinghamshire employment contract rather than an educational one.

·       John McIlwraith explained that he wanted to bring all the agencies looking after children together to support children from birth to 19 years of age (or 25 years of age for those with SEND). This was a huge piece of work.  Errol Albert explained that the advantage of the transformation were the many opportunities to join services up and work with partners. Discussions were taking place with colleagues from the Early Years team. He would provide future updates to the Committee

·       Errol Albert outlined that “business as usual” would continue for services which support children and families. Residents would be directed towards Family Hubs by the Buckinghamshire Family Information Service (BFIS). Partners, early help staff, nurseries and schools will also signpost the hubs. The Start for Life Programme, detailed on GOV.UK was very informative. He had every confidence that skilled staff would provide consistency to children and families.

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the main aims of the programme were to elicit conversations with families in order to strengthen them. Staff would undergo continual training in a mixed cohort and deal with individual family needs rather than concentrating on a specialism. Staff wellbeing and resilience would be key to this. Errol Albert stated that the workforce would be equipped to support the changing landscape. There were pressing issues to deal with following the pandemic and localities were being mapped to ensure consistent geographical coverage.

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill replied to a Member’s question that trauma-informed training would be rolled out across the partnership, potentially to schools.

·       Errol Albert answered a question about the lack of youth workers. He explained that there was more youth provision than there appeared but much more could be done to direct youths along a better path. John McIlwraith added that lack of youth workers is a challenge nationally, but it would be appropriate to work with partners in the voluntary sector. Errol Albert offered to give more information about the locality teams to anyone who requested it.

·       A Member asked how the family hubs would be advertised so that awareness is county-wide. The Chairman added that the new service would need to be promoted and the level of service across all localities should be consistent. John McIlwraith explained that communication was key. Community Boards would be a good way of reaching residents and he and Errol Albert would be happy to attend Community Board meetings, community groups or groups of Members as it was considered important to communicate well about the transformation programme. Schools had Family Liaison groups which could help. John McIlwraith explained that community boards are very well-connected and could pass messages on to all age groups. The Chairman felt that Parish Councils could also play a part in communication.

Action: Councillors to contact JM/EA if they would

like them to attend groups/boards to inform them about the transformation process.

·       In response to a Member’s question about signposting the new service model, Errol Albert agreed that there should be one point of information but pointed out that only the statutory services could be centrally controlled.

·       A Member expressed a hope that SEND services would be transformed and that social prescribers and other healthcare professionals would be part of the locality teams. Errol Albert and John McIlwraith noted that they work closely with health partners and both are members of the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and West Berkshire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Health partners would be part of the locality teams.