Agenda item

The Children & Young People Sub-Committee is asked to review the information provided on the identified budget proposals and reach a conclusion on the following:-

1.         Are the savings deliverable, sustainable and not an unacceptable risk?

2.         Is the impact on service users and the wider community understood?

3.         Have all reasonable alternative options been explored and do no better options exist?

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out in the supplementary agenda, which provided information on the identified budget proposals for 2024/25. The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance and the Director of Children’s Social Care introduced the item and went through the report. The Sub-Committee considered the reports and looked to satisfy the following questions:

1.          Are the savings deliverable, sustainable and not an unacceptable risk?

2.          Is the impact on service users and the wider community understood?

3.          Have all reasonable alternative options been explored and do no better options exist?

2024-28 SAV CYPE 001 – Children’s Social Care staffing budget realignment

The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance explained that, in light of this saving no longer being included in the Council’s Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), Finance Officers were preparing an updated MTFS that would look to achieve the savings in other areas of the Council’s budget.  The updated MTFS would take into account the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, feedback from the budget engagement process, and updated Council Tax and business rate income forecasts.

Members asked about flexible working in Children’s Social Care, and the Director of Children’s Social Care explained that the general approach in the department meant that social care staff were in office three days a week, and worked two days a week from home. The Sub-Committee heard that in office work was important for staff support, wellbeing and supervision, with team meetings taking place in person, as well as other service, team and learning events. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that working in person was important to ensure that the service held risk collectively.

The Sub-Committee asked about current vacancy rates in Children’s Social Care and heard that vacancies were filled by agency workers; there were some uncovered vacancies, but work was ongoing with the agency provider to address this. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that using locum social workers was vital to ensure that caseloads remained manageable; there would always be some vacancies, due to gaps between staff leaving and starting, but it was important that these were closed where possible. Members queried whether achieving savings through more intensive work in the family home would require a more labour-intensive approach and cause additional burden for social workers.The Director of Children’s Social Care responded that the aim of filling these vacancies was to ensure that social workers had as much capacity as possible to be more involved in family life and to work closely with early help partners and schools. The importance of partnership working with the new Family Hubs model was also highlighted. Members heard that the aims of bringing on board a CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner would be to understand which forms of intervention led to the best and most expedient results; how the Council might work better with Community Sector providers; and how systems could be streamlined to unlock more staff resource.

Members asked how officers expected to maintain the quality of interventions and meet rising demands without additional staff. The Director of Children’s Social Care stated that the support was being provided to frontline managers to improve the quality of supervision and group supervision that, it was explained, was vital to ensure social workers felt supported, and remained resilient, motivated, and upbeat. There was ongoing work to ensure social workers knew what was available in the community, and that this was easily accessible, through the Family Services Directory. The Sub-Committee heard that the management of caseloads and workloads was vital, particularly by looking at how systems could be changed to be less burdensome on social workers.The Director of Children’s Social Care highlighted that Croydon used a systemic model to ensure social workers learnt from each other, as well as making sure there was good access to training to ensure their work could be as effective as possible.

The Sub-Committee asked how the wellbeing of social workers was upheld and heard that self-care services were promoted alongside honest and open discussions on the importance of the work, valuing the self and activities outside of work. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that there were also ongoing conversations about issues for women in the profession; discrimination; oppression; the role of men and fathers in families and how to have difficult conversations. Members heard that many in Children’s Social Care lived in Croydon and were proud to work in their community; as a result; staff often found it difficult when the Council was criticised in the media. To address this and staff wellbeing, there was a celebrating success meeting once a month to recognise where good work was taking place, and to allow colleagues to appreciate each other’s work.

Members asked about recruitment, and the Director of Children’s Social Care explained that forthcoming regulation of the agency market following the Social Care Review would hopefully make permanent positions at Local Authorities more attractive, as well as requiring better referencing and longer notice periods for agency workers. It was highlighted that long-term agency workers and permanent social workers played important roles for children by providing continuity.

The Sub-Committee asked about the CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner and the Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance explained that the department had access to transformation funding through the CYPE Transformation Programme. This would be used to address both the financial and improvement challenges in the directorate, by bringing in expert capacity to look at risk sharing, outcomes for children and families, cost reductions, performance improvements and procurement processes. The CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner would help the Directorate find sustainable changes and to help continue the trend of safely reducing the number of children in care. The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance stated that a number of local authorities were also currently helping the Council review services and challenge areas of practice, but that a CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner would be a consultancy or other organisation with a proven background track record of working with Children’s Services. The Council would have a market warming session later this month to inform the scope and pricing of a CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner.The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that Greenwich Council had undertaken a peer review of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), and Islington Council were working with the Young People 16+ Service under the Sector Led Improvement Programme (SLIP) funded by the Department for Education (DfE) to look at practice outcomes with Team Managers.

The Sub-Committee asked if social workers had access to key worker housing, and whether there was a way of working with the Planning Committee to ensure that there were sufficient levels of key worker housing in the borough. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that there were a small number of key worker housing units available, but these were only available to CYPE staff on certain income bands; Members heard that this was a good scheme that was not run by all local authorities.The Director of Children’s Social Care stated that, in terms of recruitment, they were in favour of local people working in their community; this was supported by the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) scheme and social work apprenticeships. Members heard that the Council had put in a bid to the DfE for additional social work apprenticeship funding to enable Family Support workers, or key workers in early help, to train as social workers on their existing salaries.

The Sub-Committee asked about the delivery of Family Hubs in Croydon. The Director of Education explained that this was at very early stages, but that some services had begun operating out of the Woodlands Centre. The next steps would involve identifying new sites and launching a digital offer. The services in Family Hubs would follow the DfE model but would also reflect the local needs of Croydon as well as the voices of families and young people. The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People explained that lots of children, partners and voluntary organisations had attended the launch of Family Hubs, and that it had been a very positive event and a good step forward. The Family Hub transformation funding would run over three years to ensure a sustainable model could be established in Croydon through working with partners.

Conclusions

1.          The Sub-Committee were grateful for the information and responses provided by officers and the Cabinet Member at the meeting.

2.          The Sub-Committee were reassured that officers and the Cabinet Member had recognised that holding a 7% vacancy would present an unacceptable risk in Children’s Social Care, and that this saving would not be included in the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).

3.          The Sub-Committee were confident that removing this saving from the MTFS was the correct decision to protect children and ensure that caseloads for social workers did not become unmanageable.

4.          The Sub-Committee understood that the £1.1 million saving would  need to be achieved and that the updated MTFS would set out how this saving would be made while also considering the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, feedback from the budget engagement process and updated Council Tax and business rate income forecasts.

5.          The Sub-Committee were unable to comment on whether the £1.1 million saving in the budget would be achievable as the information on where this saving was to be achieved was not yet available. As such, the Sub-Committee would recommend the Scrutiny & Overview Committee reassure itself on the deliverability of any new savings proposals at its meeting on 12 February 2024, when considering the wider Budget.

6.          The Sub-Committee were reassured by the peer challenge work being undertaken with other local authorities to look at different areas of Children’s Services, and by the Council’s engagement with the Sector Led Improvement Programme (SLIP) to improve practice outcomes.

2024-28 SAV CYPE 003 – Review of Children Looked After Placements

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People explained that they had met with the two placements teams responsible for searching the market to make sure that there was the right support in place for each child. Members heard that referrals to placements had become competitive, with many local authorities seeking limited spaces. In the view of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People this was wrong, and they expressed their frustrations with the placements market. The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People explained that a new Children’s Home would be brought into Croydon next year, which would accommodate for a few young people with complex needs at a time, for short periods, and the development of the home would be funded by the DfE.

The Sub-Committee queried whether the Council had considered creating an in-house semi-independent placement provision. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that there were a number of providers in Croydon, and it needed to be understood whether the Council would benefit most from just improving relationships with these organisations, or through developing its own provision; Members heard that there were benefits and drawbacks to both private and in-house provision, but that any in-house offer would have significant up-front costs. The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance highlighted that all local authorities had to have a ‘sufficiency strategy’ for placements; in developing this, it had been found that some providers would be in favour of ‘preferred provider’ arrangements, and that this could provide the opportunity to ensure the desired quality and standards were met, as well as integrating expertise from the Council into provider placements.

Members asked if there had been consideration of using Private Boarding Schools as care placements.The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that this had been investigated, but that children in Boarding Schools also needed homes, and that this kind of placement presented challenges with  providing institutional and other specialised care that children may need. The Council did work with independent schools in the borough, including through the virtual school, and specifically through Trinity School’s summer school.

The Sub-Committee commented on the target to increase the use of in-house provision, and asked who was responsible for ensuring this took place. It was explained that decisions for Children not to stay at home needed to be made by Heads of Service or the Director of Children’s Social Care and underpinned by compelling evidence. Once this referral was written, the first port of call was the Council’s in-house fostering service, followed by independent foster care in Croydon. The Director of Children’s Social Care highlighted the importance of making sure children could stay in their own schools and in contact with their friends. If a child’s placement needed to change then this was decided at Care Panel, chaired by the Director of Children’s Social Care, where there was always a consideration of in-house provision. The quality of service the Council provided to Foster Carers was highlighted as important to ensure that Croydon had a good reputation in the fostering community, but it was also emphasised that matching children to the correct placement was crucial. The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance responded to questions on the age profile of foster carers, explaining that often these individuals were older, and so it was important to ensure more foster carers were being recruited to grow the in-house provision, and to account for foster carers retiring. It was clarified that the aim to increase the use of in-house provision would not prejudice risk and needs assessments carried out by social workers, and that decisions would not be taken that were purely finance led.

Members highlighted the challenges to achieving these savings listed in the report, and asked what plans were in place to address these. The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance recognised that the target was ambitious and explained that addressing some of these challenges was specifically in the scope for the CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner. Members heard that, with the directorates’ transformation focus and robust performance monitoring, these challenges could be closely tracked to allow the Council to react and minimise obstacles to achieving the desired savings whilst delivering the desired outcomes for children.

The Sub-Committee asked about risks from families opting out of early intervention practices. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that there were risks in this area, and that addressing this relied on the skills of social workers and their ability to negotiate, to listen to children and families, and to advocate for families on issues to build trust and confidence. It was also important that the offer provided by Croydon reflected what families needed.

Members asked about how the Council was working to engage and build trust with providers. The Director of Quality, Commissioning & Performance explained that the placement team built appropriate relationships with providers working within framework agreements, and by working in partnership with the commissioning alliance. The importance of making the Council’s processes as simple and efficient as possible was highlighted as an important aspect of building good relationships with suppliers.

Conclusions

1.          The Sub-Committee shared their gratitude to social workers and foster carers who were working to meet the needs of children in the borough.

2.          The Sub-Committee wanted to monitor the efforts of the Council to increase the in-house foster provision in the borough and agreed that this should be added to the Work Programme for 2024/25.

3.          Members were optimistic that the savings targeted from the review of children looked after placements would be deliverable, in light of the work already undertaken in this area during 2023/24.

4.          The Sub-Committee were reassured that both the officers and the Cabinet Member understood the potential impact upon service users and the wider community of delivering this saving, and that no decisions would be taken for financial reasons, if they would be harmful to children and young people.

5.          The Sub-Committee were supportive of the planned increase of in-house provision through the opening of a new Children’s Home supported by Department for Education funding.

6.          Members were optimistic about plans to continue to improve the Council’s relationship with placement providers through the continued development of processes, and through possible ‘preferred provider’ agreements.

7.          The Sub-Committee were confident that the scope for the procurement of a proposed CYPE Strategic Transformation Partner seemed well targeted but understood that the process was still in the early stages of development and that a market warming exercise had yet to take place.