Agenda item

CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES COMMISSIONING PLAN

Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review

Supplementary annex to follow.

Minutes:

Witnesses:

Belinda Newth, Head of Quality & Experience
Will Balakrishnan, Head of Insight & Innovation
Frank Offer, Head of Market Strategy
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Member for Education

Declarations of Interest:

None

Key points raised during the discussion:

Officers outlined the Children, Schools and Families Commissioning plan, noting that it set out the challenges and service delivery objectives for SEND services. It was highlighted that this Plan feeds into the work of the Children and Young People Partnership Strategy.
It was noted by officers that the service was working closely with a significant number of partners to ensure that the service was working to deliver in a cost effective manner.
Several outcomes of the commissioning plan were highlighted by officers as key points of improvement:
1. Improving outcomes for children and vulnerable groups; and
2. Managing growing demand
It was noted that there was an increase in needs based demand, but that the service must work to manage this growing need with the requirement to make budgetary savings. It was stressed that Early Help would be a crucial aspect of ensuring delivery.
Officers highlighted that the service was shifting to a strength based model of delivery, highlighting the Safer Surrey practice guide as an example. It was explained that these models would ensure that there was sufficient support available to improve outcomes for service users.
The Committee questioned the proposed new approach of working with families. It was highlighted that there was a requirement to change the expectations of families and young people to how services are offered and delivered. Officers and the Cabinet Members stressed that this was a key concern, and that there was a need for a significant culture change in the service to achieve this. However, it was stressed that the service would maintain an in depth level of assessment to determine the needs of a child and what approach is working for the individual child. The Cabinet Member for Children also highlighted that there would be a fundamental change in how the service works with families, but that the service was looking at more inclusive ways of working with them to help resolve this issue.
The Committee questioned the disparity between the quality of education in general in comparison with poorer outcomes for vulnerable children. It was stressed that the service recognised the contradiction between these two outcomes and that it was a shortcoming of the service that needed to be addressed as part of this new strategy of commissioning.
The Cabinet Member for Education noted that the service, as part of its new Commissioning Plan, was moving to a more data focussed approach. It was highlighted that there was a greater requirement for provision of disadvantaged children and that improved datasets would help the service focus on individual children’s needs more effectively and that the service needed to define the datasets used.
Officers responded to Member concerns regarding places to meet for families and young people. It was stressed that these were important for the wellbeing of both families and young people, but noted that there was a need to look into new ways of delivering these services. Officers explained that the service was working to build closer networks with partners to deliver services as part of the new commissioning plan.
Members highlighted the requirement for stability for disadvantaged children, particularly with relation to school places, but also with the need to ensure that accommodation is appropriate to ensure that children have good outcomes. Officers stressed that there was a need to ensure that school stability was achieved for young people, noting that instability and absence in schools was a key reason for poorer outcomes for disadvantaged children. It was also noted by the Cabinet Member for Children that the service was working closer with Early Help and accommodation providers to ensure that accommodation was appropriate and available for disadvantaged children to provide more positive outcomes and avoid issues in future.
Members noted that there was a requirement for £6.4 million in savings in 2018/19 and that this needed to be reconciled with how the service presents its key performance indicators (KPIs), noting that the KPIs for service plans detailed within the overarching CSF Commissioning plan were not outlined in the report. Officers stressed that the Commissioning Plan was a top level strategic document and that there was other data available within the individual commissioning plans which would be offered to the committee.
Officers noted that savings planned for 2017/18 were in progress, and that future savings were being identified. Members questioned whether the service could provide additional information to aid in measuring savings and targets set. Officers noted that there was scope to improve the datasets within the strategy. It was also suggested by officers that individual plans highlighted in the report could be looked into more closely in future by the Committee.
Officers confirmed that models of good practice in other comparable local authorities and partners had been observed and that officers had undertaken scoping visits to identify these instances of good practice. The Cabinet Member for Children also highlighted that they had been in contact with their peers in other local authorities and had identified instances of good practice and suggested ways to improve the Surrey offer.
The Committee suggested several amendments to the report regarding its role as a public facing document noting several areas of focus:
1. Members suggested that the language of the report reflect children as individuals as part of the commissioning plan;
2. It was noted that there should be a clear definition of Child Sexual Exploitation and suggested that it should be highlighted as unacceptable explicitly in the report;
3. It was suggested that the report should be presented as a public facing document and that officers note that there was a requirement to ensure that members of the public understand the commissioning process.

Recommendations:

The Committee recommends that:

The Chairmen to meet with service leads to scope which Programmes and Commissioning Plans will be considered by the Committee to assess progress against the CSF Strategic Actions.
That a summary of findings from these meetings will be circulated with the Committee before the next meeting of the Committee.

Supporting documents: