Agenda item

Purpose: Understand the role of the new IFSS service, how this service is different from other existing early help preventive family services, and how it interacts with and complements other services in the family early help area.

WITNESSES

• Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning
• Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning
• Matt Ansell, Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience
• Adam Thomas, Head of Early Help and Family Support
• Sue Turton, Service Manager for Early Help Partnerships

KEY POINTS MADE IN THE DISCUSSION

1. The Chair asked whether a smaller team than proposed in the business case could support 900 families a year, and if this would affected the depth of support. The Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience said that the business case numbers had evolved, aiming for longer periods of support to prevent escalation, which impacted the number of families served. The Service would amalgamate with family safeguarding teams by April 2026, aligning with Government expectations for a family help model. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that recruitment this year had been slower than forecasted, but they would as of April 2025 have 28 FTE staff, comprising 24 family support workers and eight senior staff. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was not making the Service more targeted but was blurring the lines between statutory and non-statutory services so that one key worker could stay with the young person throughout; however, they are currently separate because the legislation has not yet changed. He added the Council's investment in the Intensive Family Support Service safeguarded against uncertainties in Government funding.

2. A Member asked if in the absence of the Intensive Family Support Service (IFSS), the 154 referrals made to it from C-SPA between April and December would have instead been escalated to statutory intervention. The Head of Early Help and Family Support affirmed that they most likely would have had a Child in Need Plan with a statutory team. He noted that the number of children under Child in Need Plans had decreased, tentatively suggesting a correlation with the introduction of IFSS. The Director added that operational teams now had an alternative for families, reducing the need for long-term safeguarding plans. He cautioned that Child in Need and Child Protection figures could also be influenced by demand changes.

3. A Member asked what impact IFSS had on school attendance. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that schools were integral to the team supporting families in early help services, with improvements in attendance monitored through the Supporting Families Framework. Of the 50 children identified with educational needs in IFSS in the first three quarters, 40 had their needs partially or fully met when finished. The Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning said that attendance improvements were measured by the proportion of school sessions attended, with successful outcomes varying based on individual circumstances.

4. A Member asked if other neighbouring authorities were adopting similar approaches and whether Surrey County Council's IFSS team was more advanced compared to other local authorities. The Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning said that while Surrey County Council was not a pathfinder, it was observing and responding to models tested by other local authorities. The Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience added that they were plugging a gap they had identified in Surrey and neighbouring authorities might have different gaps.

5. A Member asked if three family intervention workers would be enough to address the mental health needs of all families referred, where these teams were based and how work would be prioritised across the county, and whether a strong partnership working culture existed. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that integrating family intervention workers with the wider workforce would combine the clinical expertise of Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SaBP) staff with the multidisciplinary skills of the workforce. He noted that three workers might be a good start and could help further integration. The workers would join different area teams within SaBP. The Chair highlighted the uncertainty of funding from SaBP and enquired about the likelihood and timing of receiving it. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that if funding was confirmed for the next financial year, it would be beneficial, but they would seek ways to integrate the service regardless.

6. A Member asked if any conclusion had been reached regarding the discussions with family centres about their increased inflationary costs. The Service Manager for Early Help Partnerships said that family centres could apply for an uplift as part of their existing contracts and the process to address increasing costs had started. Asked if there was a ceiling for the uplift requests, the Service Manager said commissioning was creating a fair and transparent process and looking at costs for the coming year, without a specific ceiling. The Executive Director added that the provision for inflationary pressures was made within the Medium Term Financial Strategy but there were competing demands.

7. A Member asked about the involvement of parents and carers in designing processes, if the ambition of stability for children was realised in practice, and how skilled staff were sourced and retained. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said parents were consulted during the referral process and worked as partners throughout the engagement. Motivational interviewing was used to empower parents, and family plans were jointly formulated. Family group conferencing and decision-making were part of the support process, with feedback sought and shared. Young people were involved in interviews. Regarding staff retention, trusted relationships were emphasised. There were no significant issues with retention, and high-quality applications were received from various disciplines. New staff received a quality induction and training.

8. A Member asked how IFSS fitted with various services within the Supporting Families Framework, about opportunities for multidisciplinary working, and the impact of local government reorganisation on these relationships. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that early help involved a multidisciplinary network of partners, overseen by the Early Help Strategic Boards. Joint events for practitioners were set up to learn about each other's services. The in-house Intensive Family Support Service served as a platform for expansion and collaboration, especially in data-sharing. Regarding local government reorganisation, he noted the opportunity to ensure children and families were central to the process.

9. A Member asked about the auditing process and whether families who withdrew support were tracked and included in the audit information. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that audits for the IFSS were conducted through regular supervision with line managers and focused on staff induction and quality of recorded information. The Early Help Strategic Board invested in data-sharing to support families. Tracking families who withdrew support involved ensuring child safety and informing wider partners if necessary.

ACTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

• Head of Early Help and Family Support: Clarify the figures related to the number of children whose educational needs were partially or fully met in terms of attendance.
• Head of Early Help and Family Support: Provide a detailed diagram, before the scrutiny in a day session, to help understand the touchpoints and interactions among different services and partners around Early Help.
• Head of Early Help and Family Support: Provide a follow-up report in next 12 months, to include (1) updated outcomes including performance against KPIs, (2) the extent to which the service has contributed to savings in statutory services, and (3) feedback from partners.

The Committee NOTED the report.