Agenda item

Report of the Divisional Director, Children and Young People Services

Members received a report which outlined progress with the Together with Families programme since the full endorsement from the Cabinet in July 2016. 

The Divisional Director, Children and Young People, outlined the context of the report Members received a presentation, explaining the key aspects of the progress in implementing the programme since the Cabinet meeting in July 2016.  The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Young People, underlined the key message about the approach to the delivery of these services, namely, the importance of integration of services and partnership between the agencies involved. 

A Member queried whether the “turnaround” for the 395 families mentioned in the report could be objectively assessed and confirmed.  An officer explained that, in Phase 1 of the programme, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) criterion for being assessed as “turned around” was to meet targets in two out of the three categories of progress; anti-social behaviour, school attendance and worklessness.  She accepted that, in Phase 1, there was no sustainability tracking of such improvements, and the targets were focused on individuals rather than taking into account the broader context of whole families.  The officer that once the payment of £800 per individual had been secured, there was no requirement to repay should the performance against the indicators slip. 

A Member referred to the fact that the statistics in the report did not convey a sense of the real impact on families of the programme.  The officer agreed that the material did not reflect powerful narratives of the real experience of families; she suggested that she could provide Members of the Committee with access to videos of interviews with families involved which portrayed significant achievements in keeping families together in spite of significant stresses and challenges.  In response to further questions, the Portfolio Holder added that the programme represented concerted progress for vulnerable children and troubled families, with the Council matching the funding available from Government and demonstrating that concrete improvement were being achieved. 

A Member referred to his recent visits which had enabled him to appreciate first-hand the effectiveness of this work.  In response to his queries, it was confirmed that once outcomes were achieved, children were able to exit the programme, and that families signed consent forms in respect of data protection and confidentiality.

In response to questions as to whether interventions before family crisis could be shown to be saving costs, the officer confirmed that the early support model based in three community hubs allowed for relevant cases to be escalated to statutory services if necessary.  For those cases in the “edge of care” cohort, it was much more difficult to divert children and families away from the care options.  However, given the very high costs of care, even success in diverting a few cases would result in significant savings. 

In reply to a Member’s query about the use of IT, the officer underlined that face-to-face support was the most important and effective, but the service was keen to develop online options to supplement this eg. keeping in contact over a weekend; she hoped it might be possible to attract commercial interest and sponsorship in this area. 

Information on comparisons with other authorities and on the demands on lead workers were allocated to each family was sought and the officer reported that Harrow had done well in the first round of funding claims with 80 successful claims registered compared with a projection of 50; she would provide more detailed information to Members.  The Divisional Director confirmed that the Council was trying to maintain reasonable caseloads for staff in the social work teams; supervision was provided to support staff and performance was monitored through regular reporting.

Clarification was sought on the value and range of joint work with partners.  The officer advised that key partners included the Probation service, the Police, the Youth Offending Team, Early Years services, the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Public Health, the voluntary sector and social workers.  Partners were involved in an overall Board managing the programme and on an operational group; these mechanisms facilitated better coordination, cleared blockages and progressed joint initiatives such as workforce development.  The Council’s Corporate Leadership Group (CLG) was available to deal with any more significant strategic issues and ongoing challenges.    The Divisional Director underlined the importance of moving beyond the narrow focus on children’s social care, to the broader remit of public services contributing to sustaining and supporting families, eg. the value of getting an adult in a household into work.

A Member suggested that there might be opportunities for investing in services to generate savings down the line; he felt this should have been addressed in the financial implications paragraphs of the report.  He considered that there was insufficient information for Members to make any reliable judgement on the financial context, including the relationships with partners’ funding arrangements and the prospects for commercial involvement.  The officer acknowledged the issues and indicated that a mapping exercise of the public sector resources engaged, particularly in the health sector, would be helpful.  The Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning, cautioned that, given that the DCLG reward grant amounted to a maximum of £1,800 per family, there should be realism about how much should be invested.   The Member expressed the view  that there may be financial grounds for a different approach irrespective of DCLG reward grant. 

In response to  a number of questions which sought to clarify various aspects of the programme the officer confirmed that:

·                     some families continued to receive appropriate support even though they had formally exited the programme;

·                     “edge of care” cases were those in which there was a risk of family breakdown and often related to existing Children in Need and Child Protection plans;

·                     the programme staff included a performance analyst, a data assistant, a project officer and an employment adviser based in Economic Development, with an employment adviser seconded from the DWP; the costs were covered by a service transformation grant.  It was hoped that, after April, it would be possible to carry out a mapping exercise which would inform the future structure and funding for the programme.

The Chair thanked the Portfolio Holder and officers for their contributions.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)          the report be noted;

(2)          the programme progress and key developments since Cabinet endorsement, that is, from July 2016 up until October 2016, be noted;

(3)          reporting back to Overview and Scrutiny Committee throughout the duration of the programme from 2015 – 2020, be agreed as on an annual basis.