Agenda item

Purpose: Receive overview of what the service introduced in 2024 does, what is different from prior provision, why it was changed, the benefits apparent so far and those expected.

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
• Jan Smith, Service Manager for Adolescent Central Missing & Risk

KEY POINTS MADE IN THE DISCUSSION

1. A Member enquired about potential weak points in the multi-agency service and whether issues existed with data interpretation and sharing. She asked about strategies to address such challenges and methods for measuring success. The Service Manager for Adolescent Central Missing & Risk said that the multi-agency environment involved safeguarding vulnerable adolescents and required identifying the right resources and services at the right time. The main challenge was ensuring continuity of relationships when personnel changed. Data sharing was supported by legislation, and success was measured by partner support for information sharing.

2. A Member asked about the main objectives of the Adolescent Service, the availability of services in different quadrants of Surrey, and the anticipated staff numbers within those quadrants. The Service Manager said that the main objective was to keep children safe and supported in their own homes, through early intervention with the right practitioners and services. The Service aimed to reduce the need for child protection plans through this early intervention and support. It was organised into locality-based teams across districts and boroughs, with a good spread of staff and manageable vacancies. Recruitment and retention rates were positive, with passionate workers committed to helping young people.

3. A Member asked how much more difficult it was to deliver services in a rural area compared to an urban environment, the Service Manager replied that the complexity of delivering services in rural areas lay in travel time, which was the main challenge in getting out and seeing young people. One-to-one work involved meeting young people in their location, which was easier if families were located on one estate. Teams managed this by focusing on specific areas to ensure efficient use of time. In addition, access to other resources, such as GP appointments or mental health professionals, was more challenging in rural areas.

4. The Chair asked whether a lessons learned report had been produced prior to amalgamating services. The Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience said that a review led by Future Voices and conversations with North Yorkshire had informed the decision to adapt the model for Surrey. The resulting new service aimed to prevent emergency care placements and keep children in their homes. Feedback from families helped develop the responsive edge of care offer. The service was aligned with police divisions to reduce meeting burdens and improve relationships with partners.

5. A Member asked about the level of seriousness of recruitment challenges in certain parts of the county, current staffing levels, and the composition of teams in terms of new recruits versus existing colleagues. The Service Manager said that since June last year, 24 new permanent starters had joined the Adolescent Service, making up 16% of the total workforce. The retention rate across CFL was around 10%. The service had 149 people in post, with an establishment of 144. Recruitment was positive, with passionate and skilled practitioners joining the team. However, replacing staff who leave could take up to four months.

6. In response to a query on what key performance indicators (KPIs) were used to measure the impact, quality and direction of the work, the Service Manager said one KPI was the completion of Return Home interviews within 72 hours, whose current rate was 69%. The Supporting Families Agenda had 10 outcomes, with progress tracked using dashboard metrics for timeliness of visits, assessments, and multi-agency meetings. Development work included tracking young people at risk of extra-familial harm, with a focus on reducing risk levels and monitoring the duration of support.

7. A Member asked whether Surrey County Council was pioneering this initiative or if other local authorities were achieving similar results, the Service Manager said that Surrey was ahead of other local authorities in their approach.

ACTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

• Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience: Provide in writing specific details from the lessons learned report on the ‘No Wrong Door’ model and its application to the new service.
• Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience: Provide a follow-up report within the next 12 months, to include outcomes (performance against KPIs) and the voice of partners.

The Committee NOTED the report.