All
Members present are required to declare, at this point in the
meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:
I.Any disclosable
pecuniary interests and / or
II.Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
1.The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm
four working days before the meeting (19 June
2020).
2.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting(18 June 2020)
3.The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the
meeting, and no petitions have been received.
The
public retain their right to submit questions for written response,
with such answers recorded in the minutes of the meeting;
questioners may participate in meetings to ask a supplementary
question. Petitioners may address the Committee on their petition
for up to three minutes Guidance will be made available to any
member of the public wishing to speak at a meeting.
There were two
Member’s questions from Cllr Fiona Davidson, the first on the
SEND capital programme and another on the commissioning ofdiagnostic and treatment services for Foetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder. Responses to these
questions have been attached to these minutes.
The following
supplementary was asked in relation to the second question: How
many children and young people were referred for Foetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder assessments in the past two years and how many
developmental paediatricians and Mindworks personnel have had
formal training on FASD in the past three years?
For the Select Committee to
review the actions and recommendations tracker and forward work
programme, making suggestions for additions or amendments as
appropriate.
Purpose: Toassess how well Surrey’s
Alternative Provision meets the needs of Children and Young People
in the county, and how well it enables them to maximise their
potential in both adolescence and adulthood.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong
Learning
Julia Katherine, Director – Education and Lifelong
Learning
Carrie Traill, Service Manager – Educational Effectiveness
(Head of Education)
Dee
Turvill – Alternative Provision & Participation
Manager
Sandra Morrison,Assistant Director
Inclusion & Additional Needs SE
Leanne Henderson, Participation Manager, Family Voice Surrey
(FVS)
Gen
Dearman, CEO of Challengers
Key points
made in the discussion:
Family Voice
summarised the findings from their Alternative Provision (AP)
survey conducted in September 2023, which highlighted some children
were receiving very little or no AP after missing 15 days of
school.The Alternative
Provision & Participation Manager said such cases were neither
typical nor the exception but complex. On occasion more than one
independent provider was offered to build up a full-time
package.
The survey found
inconsistencies in medical evidence required; Family Voice said
this issue was not new, but there had been an escalation in
emotional-based non-attendance since the pandemic. The Alternative
Provision & Participation Manager informed the Committee that
following a new medical policy in December 2023, a new medical
panel aims to deliver consistency in the messaging to parents and
the evidence requested which, while not a legal requirement, helps
to ensure provision is appropriate.
The Cabinet Member
thanked Family Voice for their exemplary work and noted that as a
result of a Local Ombudsman review, there had been a programme of
improvement with the objective of a consistent and compliant
approach to all children with alternative provision
needs.
The CEO of
Challengers spoke about thecharity, which provides play for excluded children
with disabilities and is funded mainly by the Local Authority
directly but sometimes by schools. She shared
that 12 of the 22 children they have supported over the last year
have now reintegrated into education. She explained that children
were with them for an average of 6.5 months and the longer they had
been out of education before being supported by Challengers, the
longer it took to get them back into education. The charity has a
waiting list. Asked if it had been impacted by changes in short
breaks funding, the CEO replied that it had affected parents’
resilience and the behaviour and confidence of young people who
received less play provision.
A Member asked if
there were protocols that included clear criteria for what was
expected from alternative provision providers, at the point of
commissioning and in terms of quality of delivery. The Member also
asked what assurance checks were conducted, especially on
unregistered providers. The Service Manager for Educational
Effectiveness responded that 58% of young people in AP attended
either a short stay school or AP academy, both of which have a
service level agreement with the Council and are monitored by
Inclusion Officers on a half-termly basis. She added that 100 per
cent of these are Ofsted rated Good or Outstanding. The independent
sector has termly monitoring visits. Checks had increased under a
new dynamic purchasing system. Each individual child has a plan
monitored by their SEND ...
view the full minutes text for item 6/24
Purpose:To
understand whether Surrey County Council’s current strategy
to recruit and retain foster carers will be successful in improving
the sufficiency of homes for Looked After Children.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong
Learning
Tina Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting
Matt Ansell, Director – Family Resilience &
Safeguarding
Jo
Rabbitte, Assistant Director – Children’s
Resources
Sam
Morris, Secretary to Surrey County Fostering Association
(SCFA)
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Director of
Corporate Parenting shared that eight households had been approved
as foster carers since the submission of the report, with more to
go through the assessment process. If all were successful, there
would be a further 26 general foster carers and 43 kinship foster
carers in Surrey by the end of the financial year.
The Secretary to
Surrey County Fostering Association (SCFA) noted
that they had been working closely with the Service to make a
foster carer charter to help foster carers feel valued and regarded
as working in partnership with the Service. The Secretary shared a
feeling widely held among foster carers that not all social workers
understood what foster carers were managing on a daily basis, in
addition to their birth families and jobs, and would like new
social workers to undergo training in order to foster realistic
expectations. They should be treated like colleagues,
especially with respect to booking meetings. Foster carers were
expected to conduct transport for the children’s contact
hours with their birth families, something that had continued after
the pandemic, adding more pressure. She said as the people who
often know the children best, foster carers would like to be more
involved in the decision-making process. The
Secretary also shared that carers would like to have paid respite
and enjoy rights afforded to normal full-time employees such as
paid leave. They would also like to see greater support from
mental health services for foster children.
A Member asked the
Council what they specifically could do to encourage Surrey foster
carers to stay in their roles. The Assistant
Director for Children’s Resources said that they could
be invited to the retention and recruitment board for foster
carers, which would give them a platform to voice
concerns.
The Secretary to the
SCFA noted that fostering was seen as a middle-class role by some
people in Surrey and the narrative had to change to debunk that
myth and advertise the financial benefits of fostering. Word of
mouth was the most important factor to improve recruitment. It was
her view that the support given to foster carers by Surrey County
Council was better than Independent Fostering Agencies and that
this should be promoted.
The Director for
Corporate Parenting explained there had been an overview of
competitors’ benefits in 2023. Fees and allowances were
raised significantly for the first time since 2019 and there was a
built-in annual inflation-linked increase. Paid leave had not been
considered but could be investigated and costed. The Cabinet Member
for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning said she could take
that under consideration but that the interests of children and
young people were the upmost priority.
Purpose of
report:The Select Committee will receive
Ofsted reports on Surrey County Council-run Children’s Homes
in its agenda, as part of a communications plan agreed in June
2022.
The Select Committee is
apprised of the latest CFL performance information, which consists
of:
(a)External assessments of all areas within the
Committee’s remit;
(b)Key indicators in children’s social care
measuring progress made in Ofsted recommendations following the
January 2022 inspection of Surrey Local Authority Children’s
Services;
(c)Performance against targets in the EHCP timeliness
recovery plan;
(d)Turnover of social workers and foster carers to
measure progress in the Children’s Recruitment, Retention and
Culture Workforce Planning Strategy.
PDF 177 KB