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.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and
Learning
Tina Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting
Liz
Mills, Director – Education and Lifelong Learning
Hayley Connor, Director – Commissioning (CFL)
Four questions were
received from Fiona Davidson. The Member asked a supplementary
question about the reason for the net decrease of mainstream foster
carers and why the service was struggling to retain and recruit
them. The Director for Corporate Parenting gave reasons that
included retirement, standards of care, and personal circumstances.
The service was working with the Foster Care Association to rectify
any issues foster carers had. Difficulties to recruit and retain
foster carers was a nationwide issue, as well as the impact of the
pandemic regarding lifestyle changes.
As a supplementary
question, the Member queried whether it was possible to change the
process regarding the deadline for submitting transport requests to
consider the timeframe of appealing a school place. The Director
for Education and Lifelong Learning explained that this was being
looked into. Once the initial phase had passed, there would be an
analysis of the cohort to understand the sequence and to inform
changes. The Director for Commissioning added that the analysis of
staffing requirements had started, and they had introduced some
levels of automation. A Member asked whether this work should come
to the Select Committee. The Cabinet Member reassured Members that
they would be closely involved in the review.
Five questions were
received from Catherine Powell. No supplementary questions were
asked.
Five questions were
received from Mark Sugden. The Member suggested for a further
report on home to school transport to come as an item to a future
public meeting. It was agreed that the Committee would receive an
interim report to the meeting in December 2022 and a full report in
2023.
To
provide the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture
Select Committee with a progress update on the Special Educational
Needs and Disabilities (SEND) self-evaluation and strategy (which
is being taken forward as the Additional Needs and Disabilities
Strategy, in line with feedback outlined below), including an
assessment of current performance, recent progress and next steps.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and
Learning
Liz
Mills, Director – Education and Lifelong Learning
Hayley Connor, Director – Commissioning
Julia Katherine, Assistant Director -Inclusion and Additional Needs
Claire Poole, Interim Chief Executive of Family Voice
Surrey
Benedicte Symcox, Former Chief Executive of Family Voice
Surrey
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Assistant
Director introduced the item, noting that the new strategy would be
in place from the beginning of 2023, building on a partnership that
has been completed. The strategy aims to improve outcomes for
children and young people and the experiences of families. The work
of the strategy was overseen by the Surrey Additional Needs and
Disabilities Partnership Board, which included a range of
stakeholders. The former Chief Executive of Family Voice Surrey
added that the Board was a collaborative space, and the
self-evaluation was an example of co-produced work between
partners.
The Chairman asked
about the options provided to respondents of the parent/carer
satisfaction survey. The Assistant Director explained thatthe survey included a
standard five-point scale from ‘very unsatisfied’ to
‘very satisfied’. Parents and carers who had a child
with an Educational Health and Care Plan (EHCP) were asked how
satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the support their child
receives from professionals to support them with their additional
needs and/or disability: 46% responded ‘satisfied’ or
‘very satisfied’ (14% very dissatisfied). A higher
proportion of parents and carers who had a child receiving special
educational need (SEN) support were satisfied with the support
their child receives from their school to support them with their
additional needs and/or disability: 52% responded
‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ (11% very
dissatisfied).
The Chairman asked
why the appeal rate was higher in Surrey than the national average
and what proportion of those were successful. The Assistant
Director explained that the number of statutory assessments had
increased , which impacted the number of appealable decisions. One
potential reason for an appeal was a lack of specialist provision,
which was being addressed by the Special Educational Needs and
Disabilities (SEND) capital programme. The Director for Education
and Lifelong Learning added that of the 578 appeals made up to the
end of the last academic year, 265 were ongoing at the time of
recording and 233 of those did not end up being heard by the
tribunal or were resolved. The reasons for this were carefully
monitored. Of those that were heard (79), approximately 50% were
awarded in favour of the family. Service managers were trained in
restorative approaches and tried to work with families to prevent
appeals from occurring. The service had published ‘Ordinarily
Available Provision’ guidance to set clear expectations about
the range of support that could be made without the need for a
statutory plan.
A Member asked how
the quality of EHCPs were monitored. The Assistant Director
responded that there was a team of quality managers who
co-ordinated a multi-agency audit process to monitor the results.
An audit tool was used to audit a representative number
...
view the full minutes text for item 38/22
Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and
Families
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and
Learning
Matt Ansell, Director – Safeguarding and Family
Resilience
Hayley Connor, Director – Commissioning
Jackie Clementson, Assistant Director –Children’s Single Point of Access (C-SPA),
Early Help & Youth Justice
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Member asked how
the service was targeting families of greatest need and asked
whether there was a reduction in child protection plans because of
the work of family centres. The Director explained that the
Council’s figures per 10,000 for child protection plans and
children looked after were in line with the national figures. There
had not been a reduction yet, but they were hoping to see one over
time. The Member also asked about the types of families who were
self-referring for services. The Assistant Director responded that
they were not able to get that data currently, however, noted that
early help needed to be accessible to all families.
A Member noted the
lack of information included in the report regarding the work
happening on the ground and raised concern over a family centre in
Upper Hale that had significant issues. The Director for
Safeguarding and Family Resilience explained that he was doing
direct work with that family centre, however, they had experienced
positive and engaging practices at other family centres he had
visited. The service had commissioned a specialist research team to
ensure that the right offer was being provided, as they wanted to
reduce the support on statutory services.
In response to a
question on the family support programmes, the Assistant Director
explained that the programmes were delivered through five district
and borough councils but the services were delivered countywide.
The programmes supported families with complex needs that did not
reach the threshold to receive statutory services.
The Chairman asked
whether family centres were located in areas of greatest need. The
Cabinet Member for Education and Learning explained that the
locations were chosen using the Income Deprivation Affecting
Children Index (IDACI), to ensure that they would have the easiest
outreach to areas of high deprivation. A Member asked how often the
areas were reviewed. The Director for Commissioning explained that
the IDACI was a national piece of work, however, the Health and
Wellbeing Board were reviewing areas of deprivation.
In response to a
question on the comparison of the new provision to the previous
Children’s Centres, the Director for Commissioning explained
that talking to families about their experiences was part of this
work and this could be brought back to the Committee. In terms of
the data, the model was significantly different to the previous
model, therefore, it was difficult to obtain comparative data.
There was data from the consultation prior to the decision on the
new model. Family centres were one important element of the overall
early help offer. The Director offered to work with the Member to
find a way to produce comparative data, whilst recognising the
difficulties.
This report provides an update on the Recruitment, Retention
& Culture Programme, its aims, scope, activity so far this year
and the priorities going forward. The Children’s Social Care
Workforce Strategy has recently been developed and is included in
this report along with an initial thematic analysis of recent exit
survey responses. An update on recruitment and retention of
children’s social care staff with key performance information
has been included as well.
Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and
Families
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and
Learning
Matt Ansell, Director – Safeguarding and Family
Resilience
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Chairman asked
about the support in place for female employees, as they made up
86% of the workforce. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families
explained that she would provide a written response to this, as it
required a broader discussion with partners in health and ASC. The
Cabinet Member for Education Learning noted that it was also
important to support men who may not feel represented in the
workforce and questioned whether the proportion of women was also
reflected in leadership roles.
In response to
questions on social workers leaving with less than two years service and responses in exit interviews, the
Director explained that it was a national trend for social workers
to move on around after a year to two years. The Council supported
an assessed and supported year in employment (ASYE) two-year
programme for newly qualified social workers. The Council had been
involved in working with the Department for Education (DfE) on
developing the early career framework, especially for social
workers. The exit interview process had been refined to gain the
granular detail for why people were leaving. The Member asked
whether people were leaving the profession or pursuing it
elsewhere. The Director confirmed that people were usually leaving
the profession. The makeup of the social work workforce had
changed, as the entry requirements were different.
A Member questioned
whether the workload was manageable and asked whether the high cost
of living in Surrey was a deterrent to employment stability. The
Director explained that caseloads fluctuated and currently some
social workers had higher caseloads than they would want. The early
intervention work was trying to reduce the casework coming from
children of certain cohorts, as the balance of children contributed
to the workload as well as the numbers of children. The Cabinet
Member for Children and Families added that affordability of
housing was a significant issue, and the Council was looking into
the possibility of key worker housing and/or housing with care and
support.
Responding to a
question on the day-to-day pressures for social workers, the
Director explained that there had been difficulties in recruiting
agency staff which was impacting on the workload and pressures of
permanent staff. In the longer term, the ambition was to improve
the proportion of agency to permanent staff. There had been
meetings with agency staff to discuss how their package with their
agency compared to the Council’s employment package. The Care
Review suggested considering utilising alternative qualified
professionals alongside social workers.
A Member enquired
about the timescale to improve the workforce position for social
workers. The Director explained that they were bringing in a higher
number of newly qualified social workers on the ASYE programme.
There was work to improve the Council’s online presence
regarding recruitment of experienced social workers. There had been
discussions about offering work experience ...
view the full minutes text for item 40/22
To
consider a proposed approach to developing the capacity of
children’s homes in Surrey to enable the longer-term
ambitions of the Council’s Looked After Children and Care
Leaver Sufficiency Strategy 2020-2025, ahead of formal proposals
being considered by Surrey County Council’s Cabinet later in
2022.
Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and
Families
Tina Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting
Chris Tisdall, Head of Commissioning – Corporate
Parenting
Key points
raised in the discussion:
A Member questioned
why the ambition was not for 100% of children to be placed in
Surrey. The Director explained that it was felt that 80% was a
realistic target based on forecasting. Some children were placed
outside of Surrey and that was the most appropriate placement for
them.
A Member questioned
when it was known that extra capacity for children’s homes
was needed. The Director explained that it was about the type of
children that were coming into care, as some of the expansion was
for children with disabilities. The Head of Commissioning explained
that there was a grown in the numbers of children and young people
and therefore, they needed to grow the infrastructure. Surrey had
17 Council-run children’s homes, whereas Hampshire and Kent
had around 70-80 each. The Cabinet Member added that there had been
an awareness for some time, which was why the strategy was
developed.
Responding to a query
on the number of beds required, the Director explained that 50-60
beds were considered realistic in a three-year strategy. The Head
of Commissioning added that 50-60 should be right, but would double
check the numbers The strategy also included reducing the number of
teenagers requiring residential places and increasing their
position in the external market. It was not necessarily about
having children in homes long term.
The Chairman asked
about the risks to the children and the Council of using
un-regulated placements. The Director reassured Members that the
service tried to avoid such placements as much as possible. Due to
a national shortage of places, it meant that sometimes they could
not be avoided. There were mitigations in place to ensure children
were as safe as possible and during their placement, the service
would try to find an alternative placement. Each local authority
had a small cohort of these children and the Council talked to
Ofsted monthly about this cohort.
A Member asked why
the need for care leaver accommodation had reduced. The Director
explained that young adults made their own choices about where to
live. There was a successful piece of work around recommissioning
the supported accommodation framework for care leavers. It was
about re-focusing on the area of greatest need which was children
looked after.
The Chairman queried
whether the Council was anticipating issues with planning
permission. The Director explained that they would be building
large family homes with three to four children per home, and they
had been successful with the two homes they were currently
building. It was not just about the planning, as the Council wanted
the children to join in with their local social environment. The
current homes worked closely with their neighbours to ensure
positive relationships.
A Member enquired
into the plans to support children to return to home with their
families. The Director explained that there was care planning
...
view the full minutes text for item 41/22
42/22
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Share this item
Purpose of the
item:
That under Section 100(A) of the Local
Government Act 1972, thepublic be excluded from the meeting during
consideration of the following items of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely
disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of
Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
The
Select Committee Members agreed to exclude the public during
consideration of item 10 on the grounds that it involved the likely
disclosure of exempt information under paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972
43/22
LEARNINGS FROM THE REVIEW INTO THE EVENTS LEADING TO THE CLOSURE OF A CHILDREN'S HOME: IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This Part 2 report contains information which
is exempt from Access to Information requirements by virtue of
paragraphs 1 and 2 – information relating to
any individual and information which is likely to reveal the
identity of an individual.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and
Learning
Tina Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting
Key points
raised in the discussion:
The Director introduced a Part 2
report containing information which was exempt from Access to
Information requirements by virtue of paragraphs 1 –
Information relating to any individual and 2 – Information
which is likely to reveal the identity of an
individual.
The Select Committee discussed
the exempt report and asked questions of the witnesses under part
two conditions.
RESOLVED:
The Select Committee
noted the Action Plan.
44/22
PUBLICITY OF PART TWO ITEMS
Share this item
Purpose of the
item:
To consider whether the item considered under
Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and
public.
For
the Select Committee to review the attached actions and
recommendations tracker and forward work programme, making
suggestions or amendments as appropriate.
It was agreed that
the report of the Adult Learning and Skills Task Group, Youth Work
and Children with Disabilities would be pushed back to 2023. An
interim update report on Home to School Transport and the
compendium overview would come to the meeting in December 2022,
with a full Home to School Transport report in 2023.
A Member requested
for the report on Youth Work to compare the current and previous
provision.
PDF 390 KB