Witnesses
Cllr Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families,
Lifelong Learning
Cllr Maureen Attewell, Deputy Cabinet Member Children and
Families, Lifelong Learning
Cllr Catherine Powell
Tina
Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting
Julia Katherine, Director – Education and
Lifelong Learning
Chris Tisdall, Head of Commissioning – Corporate
Parenting
Kay Goodacre, Strategic Finance
Business Partner for CFL
Key points
made in the discussion:
- The Chair summarised the areas where opinion differed on how to
allocate the additional Children, Families and Lifelong Learning
budget coming from Surrey’s share of
the £600m additional allocation announced by the Department
of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in January 2024:
(a) the Service wants to develop inclusive play
rather than continue to support play and leisure breaks for
children with additional needs and disabilities suggested by Cllr
Powell; (b) the Service supports the need for additional support in
schools for neurodiverse children but does not support targeting
areas of high deprivation suggested by Cllr Powell; and (c) the
Select Committee questions the value of international social worker
recruitment proposed by the Service.
- A
Member asked the Service to explain the inclusive play it espouses
and the evidence base for its outcomes. The Head of Commissioning – Corporate Parenting
explained it would make the mainstream more inclusive, for example
allow children with additional needs to access sports clubs in
their community. Surrey could learn from other local authorities
already doing this, for instance Hampshire and Wandsworth. It had
been discussed with 30 parents so far in a co-production programme.
He assured the Committee that inclusive play would not undermine
the current £370,000 play and leisure offer. A Member said
they would like to get rid of the deficit in the current SEND play and leisure offer,
i.e. address the waiting list in this area, before introducing
another scheme. The Head of
Commissioning – Corporate Parenting noted that, unlike some
other local authorities, Surrey
County Council (SCC) did not have
an eligibility threshold and this open approach made it hard to
give an answer on how many eligible children were waiting. The
Cabinet Member thought this open approach might have to
change.
- Asked how many play and leisure places for children
with additional needs and disabilities (AND) were available versus
how many were needed, the Head of Commissioning – Corporate Parenting
responded that about 1,400
children accessed 140,000 hours of play and leisure breaks each
year and about 350 children and young people were on a waiting
list. Access was at the discretion of SCC, whose statutory duty was
to provide overnight short breaks, rather than enabling every child
with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for example to access
a play and leisure scheme.
- The Cabinet Member said SCC was not obliged by statute to
provide play and leisure but it was highly valued by families of
children with additional needs, many of whom had difficulty in
finding childcare, and should be seen in the context of preparation
for adulthood and promoting independence. She was saddened by a
point in the SEND inspection report that a number of young people
with additional needs did not feel included or welcome in their
community, and felt sports clubs becoming more inclusive may help
to address that. From September 2026, every school will have to
provide access to wraparound childcare from 8am-6pm.
- Explaining why she raised the budget amendment, Cllr Powell
spoke of increased demand because of the increasing number of
children with EHCPs, and the need to reopen waiting lists that
closed due to the 2023/24 reduction in services. The Equality
Impact Assessment had stated the increased pressure on families of
children with disabilities would likely lead in some cases to the
contribution of family breakdown if not mitigated, leading to
increased costs for SCC. Parents told Family Voice the reduced
service had led to significant mental health
pressures on the family and reduced child confidence. In one case
the respite was said to be the difference between the child staying
in the family or going into residential care. Cllr Powell did not
believe inclusive provision was able to meet all
needs.
- The Service was asked if it would support more
funding focused on neurodiversity need in school catchment areas of
higher child need/deprivation in Lower Super Output Area domains,
or if alternatively it believed there should be a priority on
identifying and targeting geographic clusters of identified
neurodiversity need, regardless of prevailing socio-economic
factors. The Director for Education and Lifelong Learning
questioned whether targeting would take into account just the
school location or its catchment area, explaining that although
none of the 18 schools included in the Schools Inclusion for Autism
pilot were in those areas, many of the pupils live in such areas.
She proposed deprivation was one of a number of factors that should
be considered when targeting, including attendance, exclusions and
percentage of AND pupils within the school. She added that the
Council could not insist that any schools take up an offer of
support or direct them to do so. Asked why a school would not want
to take it up, the Director answered that they might feel they
cannot give it the attention needed to have impact if they have
other ongoing initiatives, or they could perhaps have an
alternative idea to meet need.
- A
Member queried how many schools
would be categorised as in an area of high deprivation and whether,
if these schools were prioritised, there would be any remaining
capacity. He also enquired how low level of attainment in language and communication when
starting school mapped against areas of deprivation across Surrey.
The Director responded it was a problem that had worsened due to
the pandemic and she would provide
figures.
- The Cabinet Member said most programmes already in place had
been piloted first. The Council did not manage any school and could
not dictate to or impose on schools; each one was an autonomous
organisation accountable to its governing body or
trust.
- Cllr Powell said it was acknowledged that it would take a decade
for the gap in attainment between the most disadvantaged pupils and
others return to what it was before Covid. Schools in areas of
deprivation were also dealing with the challenges of higher numbers
of children with neurodiversity and more safeguarding issues.
Forty-five Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) of Surrey were in the
bottom 20 per cent of the country. Two of the Service’s
universal suggested services provided advice that would require
extra time and energy on the part of the schools.
- A Member asked what lessons were
learned from the last occasion international social workers were
recruited, who were understood to have left due to cultural
differences and some experiencing racism from service users. The
Director for Corporate Parenting informed that out of the 33
recruited via an agency in 2022, 20 still worked for Children and
Families and four had transferred to Adult Services. SCC had held
workshops to learn what worked for them and found non-office
working had led to a number of people used to living and working in
another country feeling isolated. In West Sussex Council’s
international campaign they had a pastoral focus and did more
preparation with the employees before they left their native
countries. She added that any reported abuse was always followed
up. The Member said mentoring and whether they brought dependents
should be considered. A Member suggested a need to understand why
social workers were leaving the profession rather than bringing
workers from abroad who would have loneliness to deal with in
addition to the demands of the role. The Director said in one
retention initiative, social workers were being given clinical
support to debrief.
- Asked what impact the £5,000 per annum market supplement recommended
by the Select Committee and introduced in December 2023 had had on
social worker recruitment and retention this year, the
Director for Corporate Parenting said since its implementation, which had brought pay
more in line with that of neighbouring authorities, five agency
staff had moved into permanent roles. In Family Safeguarding, the
retention rate had increased to 76 per cent in March 2024 from 68
per cent in December 2023, a significant difference in three
months.
- The Chair explained that the £370,000 allocated to SEND
play and leisure would not necessarily fully restore all the hours
that were available in 2022/23 and this would not be known until
negotiations with providers had been concluded. Therefore, the
Committee would like some of the £500,000 being considered
for play and leisure funding additional to this £370,000,
which is proposed by the Service for a programme developing more
inclusive practice in mainstream provision, to be redirected to
bring down the waiting lists for play and leisure for children with additional needs.
- A
Member questioned the value of piloting inclusive play and thought
the Committee should take one side or the other rather than doing
both at once. The Chair said both could be funded and the pilots
were to understand how well integrated play could serve the
anticipated needs in each quadrant. The Strategic Finance Business Partner
confirmed there was money ringfenced to Children, Families and
Lifelong Learning that had not yet been allocated to specific
projects.
Actions
- Scrutiny Officer to
reshare briefing on supply and demand for short breaks provided in
July 2023.
- Director of
Education and Lifelong Learning to answer: How many schools would
be included in the Enhanced Language and Communication Initiative
if focusing first on the areas of high deprivation; and would that
utilise the whole capacity (up to 50 schools) for the programme or
not?
- Director of
Education and Lifelong Learning to answer: Is the low level of attainment in language and
communication referred to on page 63 of the report recognised
as a greater problem in areas of deprivation across the county?
Please supply supporting data.
Resolved:
1)
The Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and
Culture Select Committee endorses the following:
·
£4.84m spending
on prevention work proposed by CFLL;
·
£0.05m of one-off
funding to support the expansion of the current pilot, where
providers of SEND Play and Leisure or Overnight Respite groups
would allow parents and carers who struggle to recruit Personal
Assistants for respite to fund a session or place using their
personal allowances;
·
£0.05m one-off
funding to support the implementation and roll out of the Surrey
Foster Carer Charter.
2)
It also welcomes the Service’s proposed
£1.8m spend on social worker recruitment and
retention, with the proviso that special measures are put in place
to ensure that social workers recruited from overseas for front
line roles are retained in those roles, and the effectiveness of
these measures is reviewed six months after recruitment and
reported back to Select Committee by the end of April
2025.
3)
The Committee supports the Service’s
£653,105 proposals for additional support in schools
for neurodiverse children, and makes the following
recommendationsto demonstrate and reinforce SCC’s commitment
that no one is left behind:
a)
To better understand where the need is and why, by
the end of November 2024 the Service undertakes research to
identify where the greatest presentation of neurodiversity need
exists in the county and what the contributory factors
are.
b)
The offer for the Whole School Autism Friendly
Reviews and the Schools Inclusion for Autism Initiatives is
underpinned by the offer of implementation support to take the
pressure off the schools, with £0.3m allocated to
provide such implementation activity in schools which are
struggling to cope. It will be for the Service to ascertain which
schools would require this to enable them to take up the
offer.
4) The
Committee asks that, on completion of the co-production
programme’s research, a written report is produced to outline
the strategy for developing and delivering integrated play and
leisure across Surrey. The report should detail what integrated
play will be delivered by whom, to whom, where, and by when. It
should also address how interaction with voluntary sector providers
will work, along with an assessment of the strategy’s
anticipated impact, by comparison with existing provision, and how
the transition will be achieved. It should also identify where
integrated play will not meet the needs of children with additional
needs and disabilities, and how it is anticipated these needs will
be met.
5) Including £0.5m
that the Service proposes for a programme developing more inclusive
play and leisure in mainstream provision (which the Committee
reserves judgement on until it learns the outcome of recommendation
4), the above initiatives cost a total of £8,196,227. The
Committee understands up to £8.3 million may be available to
support prevention objectives in Children’s Services, which
potentially leaves £103,773.
Thus the
Committee recommends that all hours of SEND play and
leisure provided in 2022/23 are restored in 2024/25. It has been
indicated that this will now require more than the £370,000
uplift originally advised by the Service, and championed by the
Select Committee. It recommends using what remains of the
£8.3m to ensure that the objective of the Select Committee as
originally intended is achieved – i.e. restoration of the
hours of SEND play and leisure in 24/25 to 22/23 levels. If this is
not sufficient to restore 2022/23 hours, it recommends the
necessary funding is taken from the £0.5m that the
Service proposes for a programme developing more inclusive
play and leisure in mainstream provision.