Agenda item

Following on from last years successful talk on Children Services and this committee’s desire to have an update in a years time, officers have arranged a follow up presentation.

 

To this end we have a representative from the County, Chris Martin, the Integrated Commissioning Director (West), at Essex County Council coming to speak to the Committee. He will be talking about Children Services in the County and their current commissioning intentions for young children based upon an Early Years review they have completed.

 

For information, an extract from the minutes from the O&S meeting held on 4 June 2013 is attached containing the section of the Children Services presentation given, and subsequent questions asked.

 

The Chairman welcomed Chris Martin, the Integrated Commissioning Director (West) from Essex County Council. He was there as part of a follow up to last years successful presentation on Children Services, given by Jenny Boyd. Mr Martin noted that if the Committee were so minded he could come back again to update them on the other, wider aspects of Children Services he did not have time to cover at this meeting.

 

Mr Martin noted that it was important to support children and their families from birth right through to the early years of their life (2 to 5 years), to give them the best possible opportunity to succeed. They wanted to be challenging and have all the people working across the early years system to have a single vision of what needed to be changed, this would require big shifts in culture and practice. They would also look at how families and communities may be contributing through peer support and mentoring, thinking about the kind of support families need and not just how it was delivered. (A copy of Mr Martin’s slides are attached).

 

They would be working towards building capacity and capability of parents to support themselves and to support one another; with professional workers starting from peoples strengths and finding ways to build on them to preventing problems occurring. This would involve thinking differently about the workforce, letting them do what needed to be done and make use of their diverse experience. If they get this right they would achieve better outcomes for children while at the same time saving money.

 

They have less money to spend than before and so would need to be more effective with what they do have. They spent too much time ‘firefighting’ and not enough on prevention or early intervention. They should make use of citizens and communities; they would have the insights, capabilities and energies which were as yet untapped; there was a collaborative potential to be unlocked.

 

The outcome for children in Essex had improved but, they needed to do better as there were still some children doing poorly. More needed to be done and improvement continued as resources diminished. There was a need for joined up strategies at the foundation of their work with their partners; a strategic review of the early year’s workforce; investment in building community resilience and to address child poverty.

 

They were undertaking an ambitious, strategic, broad reaching review of early years in collaboration with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to identify innovation across the system, especially with families, removal of duplication of resources and roles, developing a common understanding and model of child development and skilling up the workforce to deliver new approaches.

 

They would innovate to generate new ideas and select the most promising ones, then test and develop them. They will be open to learning, and would honestly reflect on what they learnt, being open to failure; sharing and applying what they learn to improve the system.

 

They would also engage in ethnographic research with Essex parents and families, taking an in-depth look at the lives of eight families living across Essex combined with observational fieldwork at over 30 services. This type of research reveals behaviours and patterns that other methods would not pick up.

 

They learned that some parents were lonely, isolated and struggling to make friends and there were few places where young parents felt comfortable. There was a need for better friendship and support networks and activities that built confidence and skills that parents need. Parents should be told where and when they can get help from if they needed it. And they need to trust the professionals they connect with and know that their own skills and abilities were valued and being supported.

 

Insights gained so far was that they needed to focus on building the resilience of families and reducing their isolation; both professionals and families need to build their relational capability; no-one wants or needs more services, families were not getting the best value from the ones that already exist; and there was poor collaboration between public services.

 

Their new systems will look first at families’ strengths, focus on preventing problems and build the resilience of parents. The professionals should work together across the whole system and base all they do on evidence about what was needed and what works, being brave enough to stop things that were not working. They would have clear criteria on outcomes to enable them to know if they had been successful.

 

They were looking to have consistency across the workforce around child development and to implement four big ideas – (1) transforming Children’s Centres (owned and driven by families and communities, with support from professionals); (2) transforming the workforce (establishing a common core of understanding); (3) alternative approaches to commissioning for outcomes – (working with new providers (including communities)); and (4) – peer support and unleashing community capacity (working to parent’s strengths and building their knowledge and resilience).

 

A copy of his presentation are attached.

 

The meeting was then opened to questions from the members present.

 

Councillor Surtees noted that intervention resulting in the removal of Children from home was always likely to engender stress that is most keenly felt by the children concerned in any allegation of abuse or neglect and their siblings.  Not every intervention resulting in placement with foster parents, etc. is as a result of proven misconduct by a parent or carer.  When a family is reunited after the authorities have determined that a referral was malicious or unfounded there may be continuing stress and after effects for the children in the family. These negative experiences are especially difficult for children who are disabled, of special educational need or from families with poor English language skills and limited knowledge of British culture. Can Mr Martin explain what steps are routinely taken to assist children and families who have experienced this kind of disruption?  Mr Martin answered that it was unusual for a child to be removed on grounds of malicious or unfounded concerns. It would have to be done through the power of the Court. For longer term support, they would call upon a range of supports available through existing counselling services or the more targeted support of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and or Social Services. Councillor Surtees responded by saying that there were many reasons why children were removed temporally. You indicated that this would be unusual but I am aware of several cases. All I am asking is for a wake up call on this.

 

Councillor Girling noted that a consultation was held in the recent past on children centres and at the time we were told then that there would be a second wave of consultations about this. Also a lot of officers from the centres have left because their hours had been cut. Has there ever been a second consultation and how are you tackling the loss of staff over the last six months. Mr Martin replied that he was not aware of a second consultation or the loss of staff.  They were currently asking that the centres become more ‘outreach’ type of centres and include and strengthen their ties with their families using them to tell them what they need to do to be more effective. Councillor Girling noted that the first consultation had some concerns raised by some local parents, on some of the Outreach venues used that were not up to standard to cope with groups of very young children and staff having their workload doubled.

 

Since the meeting Mr Martin has sent in the following as a follow up to the above question from Councillor Girling:

‘Context:

The Children’s Centre Public Consultation undertaken last year set out changes to service delivery that focused on working smarter and focussing use of resources on actual services for children and less on buildings and other overheads, that ensured, making maximum use of buildings and the staff delivering services.

 

The proposals set out the intention to extend the contracts from April 2014 until March 2016 to ensure that children’s centre services continue across the county for another two years; with no overall reduction in the level of services being delivered as a result of implementing a restructured model from 85 Main site Children’s Centres to a combination of 37 Main Sites and 37 Delivery Sites. This meant that 37 children’s centres would be re-designated from a Main Site to a Delivery Site with an overall reduction of 11 premises countywide from the current model. The proposed re-designations and closures were identified with the aim of delivering services where families most need them across the county.

 

In Epping this meant:-

 

·         Hazelwood Children’s Centre remained as a Main site

 

·         Sunrise Children’s Centre remained as a main site

 

·         True Stars remained as a stand-alone main site

 

·         Brambles remained as a main site

 

In response to the question:

Since April 2014 the main Children’s Centre for this area is now Sunrise, with Little Oaks becoming a delivery site. There is a greater focus on targeted outreach provision with services being taken out into the community and homes to those families that have been identified as requiring support, with less being delivered within the centre buildings. This means that families that have been identified as needing support do not need to attend a centre to access services. Across Epping, only 1 centre was closed as a result of the changes, Little Buddies, and families from this area have been transferred to Hazelwood Children’s Centre with Abbeywood as a delivery site.

 

A review of the data collected on children being seen by the Children’s Centres for the first 2 quarters of this year, compared to the same period in the preceding year, does show a drop for Little Oaks but an increase for the main site Sunrise, which indicates that the number of families accessing services within the area as a whole has remained the same.  It should also be noted that due to increased focus on targeted support aimed at delivering services where families most need them will mean that universal services will generally be run from Sunrise and not Little Oaks.

 

Little Oaks is open for 15 hours per week, but the centre does have the flexibility to open more than this if local need requires it to and this is happening on a regular basis to meet the demand of the target number of families from Little Oaks merged with Sunrise numbers of 1850 (almost 1000 from an under 30% area). This is now more established and meeting local needs. Also, as part of the changes implemented Spurgeons a member of staff has left, some are working in different centres and one member of staff was on long term sick, which left the centre needing to employ agency staff on a temporary based whilst replacements were recruited. There was a recruitment drive in place over the summer months. This is now all concluded and Spurgeons feel the centre is effectively meeting the needs of local families.’

 

 

Councillor Chambers asked if they were inspected by Ofsted and was told that Ofsted were their regulators and had carried out an inspection in April and they had been judged as being “good”. That process took the best part of a month and was very thorough. Part of this process was to look at the Children Centres.

 

The Chairman read a question sent in by Councillor Angold-Stephens “Having recently visited Little Oaks Children’s Centre in Loughton I formed the impression that they were very professional and enthusiastic but I was also aware that they were heavily stretched and, as far as I could tell, their outreach services, which are now very important because of the closure of other centres, is not functioning as well as it might through lack of resources.  As a result, young families are probably slipping through the net, particularly those living some way away.  I would emphasise that the staff are doing their best but they seem to be under-resourced.  Can you advise on what action you are taking to remedy this situation?” Mr Martin said he could supply specific answers later but noted that Children Centre staff would be brought together to help design a system fit for service.

 

Councillor Janet Whitehouse said that at the last presentation they had about Children Services talking about ‘Homestart’ and how families could use other centres. Did you know how many families in total have transferred and the reasons why others didn’t. Mr Martin did not have the figures with him and indicated that he would get back to her with an answer.

 

Councillor Neville asked about the Children’s Centre in Buckhurst Hill (Little Buddies), did he know how many families that used this now use outreach or the Sunrise centre. Mr Martin said her would find out and get back to him.

 

Councillor Lea asked if we were taking on the right type of people to look after the children, people who had the right life experience and who would stay the course. Mr Martin agreed that they needed the right type of people that had the right skill mix and capacity to handle the work and to help families build relationships. It was difficult in the West of the county as they were in competition with Hertfordshire and London.

 

Councillor Mitchell noted that from the presentation there were a lot of outside agencies affiliated to ECC. You were looking to streamline the service and make it more productive. Did he have regular meetings with them to get feedback to aid in your aims and objectives. Mr Martin replied that yes, they work on a contractual basis, working through contracts, with clear monitoring processes. Also, within the agreements are some contractual levers we can use. I and my team will be involved in the commissioning of health visitors locally, the local community health provider for children and the local children centre provider. In the past this was a fragmented picture, but in the future there will be greater consolidation making the monitoring arrangements much more effective and simpler.

 

Councillor Girling noted that some stakeholders, such as the Youth Service used a few sites in Loughton, but they did not have any desk space at these venues. Could the County look at these to enable them to perhaps use some office space. Mr Martin noted that this seemed sensible to him and he would take this idea back.

 

Councillor Janet Whitehouse noted that one of his slides mentioned the movement of Health Visitors can he tell us from where to where? Mr Martin replied that currently Health Visitors are commissioned by NHS England. From October next year the responsibility for the commissioning arrangements would transfer to the local authority. Not the workforce, but just the responsibility was transferring. This is part of the shift from NHS to local authorities.

 

Councillor Surtees was aware of the concern about the closure of the Homestart scheme. What was the continuing role of the voluntary sector that was not part of a big organisation? He noted that when a project closed there had not been good liaison about providing alternative services. Mr Martin noted that their plan was to move from an annual bidding process to something a bit more sustainable, in accordance with what he had been told over the years by the voluntary sector, that yearly agreements really does not help anyone. In West Essex we have combined efforts so that this year we have a process for organisations to bid for one pot of money for one outcome. This has been met with a degree of positivity. The next stage would be to extend this agreement for three years. They were also lucky to have an external funding team to bring in outside money and help organisations access outside funding.

 

Councillor Lea wanted to know if all voluntary workers were CRB checked. She was told that they usually were but it depended on the type of work they were asked to do.

 

The Chairman of the Committee thanked Mr Martin for his interesting presentation and useful answers to the questions raised.