Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council | |||
Social Care Policy Review Committee |
Item X | ||
14 March 2003 |
|||
Project brief outline for the Best Value review of support for children and young people in the community 2002/2003 | |||
Report of the Director of Social Services | |||
Contact: Natalie Trentham, ext 5378
1 Original scope of the review
This project brief outlines plans to review services which support children and young people in the community (described in appendix i).
1.1 In the light of the remodelling of the department, the core review team propose that the review be carried out in two stages. Stage one will focus on those services which remain unchanged by the remodelling of children's services. These services, which constitute the SSD children's services' first response to the public, include:
i. Reception and assessment teams
ii. The children and families aspect of the out-of-hours service, Social Services Direct
iii. Inclusion (school-based) social workers
1.2 The findings from stage one of the review will inform the second stage which will include the review of:
i. Family support teams
ii. Care leavers' teams
1.3 While it is acknowledged that care leavers' teams are part of the services for looked after children, the young people who receive these services are predominantly living in the community. The care leavers' service was first established in 2002 and was not, therefore, included in the Best Value review of services for looked after children 2001-2002. For these reasons, it was decided that this service should be included in stage two of this review.
1.4 This review will not include the services listed below which are the subject of previous or future reviews:
i. Services for children looked after (reviewed 2001-2002)
ii. Services for children with disabilities (to be reviewed 2003-2004)
iii. `Early Years' services (to be reviewed 2003-2004)
iv. Child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS (reviewed 1999-2000)
2 Team
2.1 The core team consists of representatives from Social Services and other agencies involved in the provision of services to children and young people in the community. Members of the core team have been selected to encompass a broad range of roles and mix of skills (appendix ii).
2.2 The core review team will be reconstituted for the second stage of the review to include representatives from family support and care leavers' teams which will be the focus of stage two. The review leader and the two project managers will be part of the core team for both stages to ensure consistency and continuity.
2.3 The core team has identified a wider group of stakeholders from the services included in the review and key external providers (appendix iii).
3 Visioning
3.1 This review will follow the revised, streamlined Best Value process. The review has been scoped to focus on areas where there is potential for achieving improvements and to fit in with service planning and development.
3.2 Initial consultation with internal and external stakeholders took place on 10 January 2003 (appendix iv). Participants agreed the following vision statement:
`All children will have the best start in life through the provision of a range of locally based, accessible, child and family-centred services which are responsive to and supportive of their needs. Services should work in partnership to ensure the most effective use of resources and improved outcomes for children and families.'
3.3 The following issues for the review were identified by stakeholders:
a. accessibility of services
b. maximising participation (community, children and families)
c. effective partnerships at all levels
d. commonly agreed referral, assessment and planning processes
e. effective and efficient use of all resources, including staff
f. effective communication and information sharing
g. effective monitoring and evaluation
h. direction and leadership
i. outcomes for children
4 Approach to the review
4.1 It is proposed that core team members form working groups to review each of the services identified in stages one and two (paragraphs 1.2, 1.3). The working groups will adapt the Excellence Model framework to identify strengths and areas for improvement. This evaluation will encompass the issues listed in paragraph 3.3. Additional members will be co-opted to these working groups as required.
4.2 Challenge
4.2.1 Challenge will be provided by the core review team, the wider stakeholder group and through further consultation with the following:
- Family Group Conference user group
- All in Step reference group (parent and carers of children with disabilities)
- Young carers' groups
- School staff and children working with inclusion social workers
- CAFCASS
- Care leavers
- Families accessing reception and assessment services
- Children and families involved in child protection conferences
4.2.2 Challenge will also be achieved by addressing new national guidance (outlined in paragraph 5) that will come on stream during this review.
4.2.3 Each working group will report to the core review team and to the wider stakeholders to ensure regular challenge throughout the process.
4.2.4 Ensuring effective and appropriate challenge is a major issue for the review for a number of reasons:
a. there are few existing groups which reflect the services received by children and young people in the community
b. a number of service users may not welcome intervention by social services
c. there are few national children's voluntary organisations, lobby or pressure groups active in Hampshire
4.3 Consultation
4.3.1 Consultation will include:
i. Stakeholder events at each phase of the review (four in total)
ii. Analysis of existing consultation e.g. Audit Commission inspection of child protection in Education, audit of reception and assessment services (1999-2000), evaluation of departmental remodelling
iii. Consultation with groups identified in paragraph 4.2 using a combination of focus groups, questionnaires and telephone surveys.
4.4 Comparison
4.4.1 Comparison will be made with other Local Authorities who meet the following criteria:
i. a high performing two star local authority
ii. a local authority in the south east
iii. a large rural local authority
iv. a local authority using the Dartington paperwork for the Department of Health assessment framework
4.4.2 In addition the review will compare the performance of Children's Services immediate response service with other social care emergency response services and possibly comparing more widely e.g. with NHS Direct.
4.5 Competition
Whilst there are no obvious competitors for the services being reviewed, the review aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services to support children in the community and to consider the potential for capacity building in a number of ways. Firstly, through comparing performance and best practice with other local authorities listed above (paragraph 4.7). Secondly, by comparing the quality and cost effectiveness of voluntary sector provision that exists elsewhere in the country (e.g. care leavers' services). Thirdly, by reviewing services in the light of emerging national guidance for children's services.
4.5.1
4.6 Corporate key themes
4.6.1 The core group has received presentations on the corporate key themes of e-government, sustainable development and crime and disorder. Initial training has been carried out with Best Value leads in the use of the corporate Equalities Assessment Framework. It has been agreed that the leads for key themes will provide advice and quality assurance at each phase of the review. Each working group will ensure that the key themes are addressed and that relevant leads or representatives are co-opted as required.
5 Factors to take into account
This review will take place during a period of significant national change in children's services. The review will need to be responsive to emerging developments as far as possible. Factors with the potential to impact on the review include:
- The recommendations of the Laming Report
- The Green Paper `Children at Risk' (Spring 2003)
- The introduction of identification referral and tracking for vulnerable children (IRT)
- The piloting of Children's Trusts
- How the work of Quality Protects will be taken forward after 2005
- The introduction of a National Service Framework for children's services
- The introduction of the Integrated Children's System
5.1 In addition, local factors likely to impact on the review include:
-Post implementation review of remodelled services
- Implementation of the second phase of remodelling in children's services
- Outcome of the SSI inspection of Children's Services 2002/2003
- Children in Need (CIN) census evaluation (Summer 2003)
6 Resource requirements
6.1 £4,000 has been allocated to meet the costs of consultation and venue hire.
6.2 The timescale for carrying out the review is 19 months (82 weeks). Project days have been estimated as follows:
Project leader average 1.5 days per week 123 days
PMU project manager average 1.5 days per week 123 days
Operational project manager average 1.5 days per week 123 days
Core team members x 3 19 days per member 57 days
Chairs of working groups x 3 38 days per member 114 days
Total: 584 days
6.3 These are the target dates for completing each stage of the review (see project plan, appendix v):
Start Finish
Stage One January 2003 November 2003
Stage Two December 2003 July 2004
7 Outputs from the review
7.1 The options report from stage one of the review will be submitted to the Social Care Policy Review Committee (PRC) by 12 September 2003 and will identify service improvements and options for service delivery. The outcome report from stage one will then be submitted to PRC by 14 November 2003.
7.2 The options report from stage two of the review will be submitted to PRC in May 2004 and the target date for submitting the outcome report from the second stage and completion of the review is July 2004.
Appendix (i) Outline of services under review
1. Reception and assessment teams
Aims
Ensure that the initial contact children, young people and their parents/caregivers have with the service results in a timely response appropriate to their type and level of need, having due regard to statutory responsibilities and available resources.
Staffing
56 FTE staff, comprising 7 team managers (Family Support service managers manage Reception and Assessment), the rest being senior practitioners, social workers and social services assistants.
Budget
Total projected spend 2002/3 = £1.5m
Challenges
· Interfacing and ensuring linkages with Family Support services
· Recruiting and retaining staff
· Completing initial assessments of need within 7 days
· Keeping up to date with legislation, government guidance, research
· Local networking to develop partnerships with other agencies when staff turnover is high
2. Social Services Direct
Social Services Direct is the service that operates when area offices are shut. It incorporated the previous out of hours service in a service centre setting with the aim of improving the availability, quality and consistency of access to social care for Hampshire residents and agencies.
The service is generic and covers the whole of Hampshire and is also purchased by Portsmouth City Council to provide out of hours services for Children and Families and care management.
Aims in relation to Children and Families
To assess and respond appropriately to any situation involving the welfare of children for which the Social Services Department has a responsibility and which arises whilst Area Offices are closed.
Staffing
1 x Service Manager
3 x Team Managers (Child Care, Mental Health and Care Management)
Establishment of 12 social workers
Establishment of 5 care managers
Establishment of 9 service centre operators
Expenditure
The staffing budget is a generic one across all sectors. Any specific expenditure on individual children and families is costed to area teams.
Key challenges
Ensuring that the service response from Social Services Direct mirrors, wherever possible, the mainstream service provision, especially in relation to the safeguarding of children.
_ Whilst Social Services Direct Staff are governed in their responses by the same policies, procedures and protocols as colleagues in area teams, at present they do not have electronic access to child care records. A key challenge therefore is making the right `child-focused' decision and response with limited access to information. This will be addressed in time by the introduction of SWIFT.
_ The increasing demand from government to provide a more comprehensive 24-hour response
3. Inclusion social workers
Aims
Hampshire has been responsible for pioneering school based social workers who carry out preventative work with children and families, that helps to reduce school exclusion and family breakdown as well as providing a more universal and family friendly delivery of social work practice.
The Service has recently been identified as a model of good practice by the Cabinet Office's Social Exclusion Unit.
Evaluation of the posts in 2001 highlighted:
· a reduction in school exclusions
· a reduction from participating schools of referrals to R & A
· a greater customer satisfaction with social work services
· improved communication between schools and social services.
Staffing
The Service consists of 10.5 staff, deployed in:
· the LEA's behaviour intervention service
· school pyramids
· the County's schools for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties;
- The Waterloo School
- Sundridge School
- Lakeside School
- Hawthorne/Wolverdene School
Funding
Funding of the posts is provided through:
· single funding by Social Services (all mainstream posts and the BIS)
· joint funding with the LEA (all EBD posts)
· one joint funded post with Romsey schools
4. Family support
Aims
To enable children in adverse circumstances to develop normally and achieve their potential by:
· Supporting children and young people in need (aged 0-18) and their families assessed as needing services in addition to those provided universally or locally and voluntarily in their community
· Assessing needs in depth in conjunction with parents/carers, with individual care plans drawn up to meet those needs which are regularly reviewed and monitored
· Developing partnerships with local providers of family support services so that, as well as providing practical help and support to families already involved with the Department, they can work in a preventive way with families.
Staffing
200+ FTE staff- 10 service managers, 13 team managers; the remainder being senior practitioners, social workers and social services assistants.
Budget
Total £5.9m projected spend 2002/3- this excludes budget for fostering, residence and adoption allowances.
Challenges
· Increase numbers of children supported in the community in proportion to LAC numbers - only have S17 budget for this
· Increase numbers of children placed with family and friends so they are not looked after
· Increase use of FGCs at crucial decision points
· Increase knowledge of and links with other providers of family support services in the community when staff shortages and crisis work make this difficult to achieve
5. The Care Leavers Advice and Support Service (CLASS)
In response to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, Hampshire has developed a specialist service to improve the life chances of young people living in and leaving local authority care.
Aims
The main aims of the service are:
- To delay young people's discharge from care until they are prepared and ready to leave
- To improve the assessment, preparation and planning for leaving care
- To provide better personal support
- To improve the financial arrangements
Staffing
The above aims are realised through 25 workers based in 3 specialist teams (each managed by a team manager) providing help which includes:
_ personal advisors (social workers)
_ accommodation officers
_ training employment support workers
_ mentoring co-ordinators
Budget:
The Service is funded through an annual ring-fenced grant of £4m.
Appendix (ii) Core review team
Name: |
Role: |
Natalie Trentham |
Review leader |
Glynis Hodges |
Project manager |
Alison Heywood |
Project manager (PMU) |
Cllr Mrs Frankum Cllr Mrs Holden-Brown Cllr Hayes Cllr Mrs Snaith |
Nominated council representatives |
Kay Stone |
Staff representative (Family Support practitioner) |
Marilyn Barton |
Early Years |
Janet Féat |
Strategic lead, Family Support |
Val Elliott |
PCT representative |
John Heath |
Education Department |
Penny Velander |
Corporate Performance Team |
Sue Willetts |
Social Services Direct |
Patrick Hobbs |
Reception and Assessment senior practitioner |
To be identified |
Police representative |
To be identified |
Social Inclusion representative |
Appendix (iii) Stakeholder group
Stakeholder Group (continued)
Appendix (iv) Record of stakeholder workshop, 10 January 2003
VISION
1. Dedicated and valued time given to early preventative work
2. All planning for children takes the form of FGCs
3. Joint inter-agency planning for children
4. Ability to fulfil eligibility criteria for children
5. Closer working with police in Child Protection Investigations
6. Consultation with children
7. Closer lines of communication between services
8. What child thinks he/she needs is listened to
9. All staff have skills and knowledge to work effectively with children
10. Children are heard
11. Acceptance of shared responsibility and understanding of services
12. Effective multi-agency prevention with monitoring
13. Communication with Members on all matters
14. Lack of duplication of effort with all agencies
15. Mapping of various services through SSD and external agencies
16. Less paperwork to free up time
17. Agreed protocols on sharing information
18. Continued, robust inter-agency working
19. Joint posts between Health and Social Services
(early preventative work)
20. Ability to joint resource working
21. Increase in multi-agency understanding
22. No Social Services vacancies!
23. Better work and transition to adult services
24. A quick response to referrals
25. Child-up approach
26. Data collection systems to speak to one another
27. Better planning of resources and spending
28. Holistic support through multi-agency teams
29. Debate with public about expectations
30. Communication between agencies
31. Every local community to have a combined health visitor - social worker
VISION STATEMENT TABLE A
"All children to have the best start in life by ......
The provision of a range of locally based, child and family centred services which are responsive and supportive to their needs, working in partnership together with all agencies to ensure the most effective use of resources".
Number of votes = 14
VISION STATEMENT TABLE B
Our service will provide children and families with effective support at an early stage.
This will be delivered by well-resourced multi-agency response teams providing local, preventative , holistic, practical inputs to the child and the family according to their jointly identified (by them and us) needs to enable them to achieve their potential.
Number of votes = 4
VISION STATEMENT TABLE C
To provide a well-resourced, easily accessible, community-based multi-partnership, early preventative approach to reduce the number of children in Cat. 1 by delivering a family-friendly, fast and effective service-with a ring-fenced budget, please.
Number of votes = 0
VISION STATEMENT TABLE D
Our excellent service will be community led in providing child centred and family focused services.
Services will be delivered using a creative multi-agency approach through partnerships with community, voluntary and statutory agencies.
Timely delivery of services will ensure effective outcomes for children and families.
Number of votes = 11
PRIORITIES
1. RESOURCES - `Effective and efficient use of all resources'.
2. PARTNERSHIPS- `Effective partnerships at all levels'
3. PARTICIPATION -`Maximising participation (community, children & families)'.
4. COMMUNICATION - `Effective communication and information sharing'.
5. ACCESS TO SERVICES- `[Improved] accessibility of services'.
6. ASSESSMENT - "Commonly agreed referral and assessment process".
WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED?
1. Resources
_ Pooled budgets/resources
_ Identify and evaluate how resources are allocated
_ Pooling of budgets
_ Increase flexibility of funding to end `spend it or lose it' philosophy
_ [Direct] money to the front line
_ More resources into preventative work
_ Designated, ring-fenced budget increase for children's services
_ Reprioritising
2. Partnerships
_ Co-location of multi-agency teams on sites located in neighbourhoods
_ [Greater] trust between agencies
_ Shared understanding of priorities[between] different agencies
_ Acknowledge and agree the contributions, responsibilities and expertise of all partner agencies
_ Establish locally-based focus groups from all agencies
3. Participation
_ Harnessing what is already in the community
_ Ensuring there is a child-centred focus. Responding to what we hear from children and young people
_ User involvement in the development of services
_ Establish locally-based focus groups from all agencies
4. Communication
_ Good communication channels
_ Shared database
_ Communication to improve between agencies
_ Address the loss of area bases and established contacts (casualty of remodelling)
_ Commonly agreed data sharing protocol
5. Access
_ One point of contact for all children's services
_ Quick, easy local access to services
6. Assessment
_ Combined strategic planning and procedures for children i.e. initial and core assessments
_ One assessment tool that all agencies are signed up to
_ Commonly understood referral and assessment processes
_
Appendix (v) Project Plan
STAGE ONE | |||||||||||
Phase |
Preparation |
Consultation |
Implementation | ||||||||
Activity: |
Jan 03 |
Feb 03 |
Mar 03 |
Apr 03 |
May 03 |
Jun 03 |
Jul 03 |
Aug 03 |
Sep 03 |
Oct 03 |
Nov 03 |
Project Brief to PRC |
14/3 |
||||||||||
Core Team meetings |
21/1 (1) |
18/1 (2) |
14/1 (3) |
17/4 (4) |
22/5 (5) |
20/6 (6) |
22/7 (7) |
21/8 (8) |
23/9 (9) |
23/10 (10) |
20/11 (11) |
Working Groups |
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
|||||
Stakeholder Group |
10/1 (1) |
||||||||||
Consultation |
|||||||||||
Comparison work |
|||||||||||
Analysis of findings |
|||||||||||
Options development |
|||||||||||
Option report to PRC |
12/9 |
||||||||||
Write outcome report |
|||||||||||
Outcome report to PRC |
14/11 | ||||||||||
Project Plan
STAGE TWO | ||||||||
Phase |
Consultation |
Implementation | ||||||
Activity: |
Dec 03 |
Jan 04 |
Feb 04 |
Mar 04 |
April 04 |
May 04 |
June 04 |
July 04 |
Core team meetings |
(12) |
(13) |
(14) |
(15) |
(16) |
(17) |
(18) |
(19) |
Working group meetings |
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
||
Stakeholder group |
||||||||
Consultation |
||||||||
Comparison work |
||||||||
Analysis of findings |
||||||||
Options development |
||||||||
Option report to PRC |
||||||||
Write outcome report |
||||||||
Outcome report to PRC |
||||||||