Agenda item

Purpose of the Report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets

1.    To review the transformation business case, consultation feedback and impact on service change.

2.    Understanding of the case for change, the expected benefits and how the Council has responded to consultation feedback. To hold decision makers to account for expected financial and non-financial benefits via future scrutiny

Witnesses:

Mary Lewis, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families

Julie Iles, Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning

Jacquie Burke, Director for Family Resilience and Safeguarding

Nigel Denning, Interim Consultant for Early Help

Key points raised during the discussion:

Liz Bowes and Robert Evans briefly left the room during this item

Victoria Young left the meeting at 12:15

1.    The Director for Family Resilience and Safeguarding covered the rationale for the change to children’s services. The critical differences were that the council had to have a coherent offer that everyone, residents, partners and practitioners included, understood. The council’s front door would change from the current Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) model to integrated co-located teams based on a family safeguarding hub and early help hub models.

2.    The Chairman sought clarification on the early help advisory boards that existed to support the early help offer in districts and boroughs. The consultant advised that these were still part of the transformation plan but needed to be understood as part of the new structure of children’s services. The Committee emphasised to officers that Local Members needed to know who the new staff taking on these boards were.

3.    A Member of the Committee sought more information on the difference between the existing MASH approach and the new family safeguarding and early help hubs and assurances that this would represent significant change. The Director replied that there had been criticism of the MASH set up from the Children’s Commissioner. It had been overwhelmed by the number of referrals as the council had told its partners to refer in any situation whereas elsewhere partners manage contacts themselves. The Director had reviewed requirements for consent and other Authorities practice. This had led to partners being asked to obtain consent before referral. In February the council’s levels of need and what services might be provided were relaunched which was a departure from past practice.

4.    The Director further explained that if a child’s need met the threshold for statutory services this referral would go to assessment teams therefore bypassing any need to go through the MASH information gathering process. If there was uncertainty about the level of need the case would then go through the Family Safeguarding hub to make a decision.

5.    The officers were asked if they were happy with the level of response to the consultation and how they would monitor the implementation of the new family resilience model under different providers. Witnesses reported that the level of engagement provided a rich source of information and that there had been a lot of dialogue with parents and families outside of the consultation too. All providers would work to same contract and service specification including key performance indicators which would allow for consistency.

6.    The Committee queried how residents would cope with the loss of other universal services that were provided in children’s centres such as breastfeeding clinics and support for those with post-natal depression. The new model was still about providing services across the county without relying on existing buildings. Officers were working with partners to repurpose the departed venues for these kinds of services. The Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning recounted recent discussions on reshaping cultural services including libraries which would be relevant for this transformation work.

7.    A Member of the Committee questioned the evidence base for the family safeguarding model and where else it had been successfully utilised. The Director explained that it was developed in Hertfordshire, a county that shared a number of attributes with Surrey so was a useful fit, and the County Council had been rated inadequate by Ofsted and was now outstanding with much of this improvement owing to the adoption of the new model.

8.    The Chairman queried whether the action plan from the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) on children’s centres was on track. The Interim Consultant advised that this was a dynamic document that would be updated but the new centre model was not yet complete. Once each provider was known an individual implementation plan would be shared with partners. The Chairman reiterated the need for local Members to understand the plans for their local areas.

9.    The Director was asked for assurances that the restructuring of the Directorate was going to deliver savings and better outcomes. The savings attached to the restructure have been achieved, however, assimilating staff into new posts and the development of a new culture would be a longer journey. The recent Ofsted findings showed that the Directorate was more self-aware but the Director cautioned the Committee as the scale of change was not without risk and stated that the council was reliant on good relationships with our partners.

10.  The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families closed the item by telling the Committee that the council was looking at examples of best practice rather than inventing our own as had been the case with the MASH. The changes to children’s social care model would be a gain for the children and families that need it most.

RESOLVED

1.    The recommendation made under Item 7 would include the indicators for measuring performance discussed for Family Resilience.