Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to receive an update on the Children, Young People and Educations Directorate’s transformation work, including an update on the indicative outcomes from the diagnostic work of the Council’s strategic delivery partner.

The Sub-Committee considered a paper set out on pages 21 to 26 of the agenda, which provided an update on the Children, Young People and Educations Directorate’s (CYPE) transformation work. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement introduced them item followed by an overview of the report by IMPOWER representatives.

The Chair asked whether there were examples of IMPOWER delivering improved outcomes for children at lower costs for councils in other metropolitan areas in the country. The IMPOWER representative explained that they had worked with a number of authorities across the country, including London, and that the names of these councils could be provided if requested. The Chair asked if there were examples of IMPOWER specifically delivering improved outcomes at reduced costs for these councils, and was informed that additional information on this could be provided on request. The IMPOWER representative clarified that the figures included at 3.21 of the report were selected as they were included in IMPOWER’s latest ‘Annual Impact Report’.

The Chair asked how confident IMPOWER were that they would be able to deliver similar results in Croydon to the figures included in 3.21 of the report.

The Sub-Committee heard that IMPOWER were confident in their experience, tools, and tested approach. The IMPOWER representative explained that they were made more confident by the way that services, the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People and senior officers had welcomed IMPOWER into the Council and the apparent appetite for working together on transformation and improvement. Members heard that the contract with IMPOWER would ensure that they were held accountable for delivering desired improvements.

The Chair asked how much oversight the CYPE Transformation Improvement Oversight Group (TIOG) would have over IMPOWER and what this would look like on a day-to-day basis. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the TIOG met monthly to review the CYPE Transformation Programme and were responsible for signing off all of IMPOWER’s agreed key milestones. The TIOG would feed up to the Corporate Management Team and Mayor’s Advisory Board; underneath the TIOG sat a number of reference groups that would look at and monitor specific areas, such as a ‘Valuing Care’ and ‘Modelling Demand and Service Redesign’ groups. Members heard that a contract monitoring group had also been established. The Sub-Committee were informed that some of IMPOWER’s fee was subject to the successful delivery of transformation and improvement.

The Vice-Chair asked for some explanation of what a typical agenda for a TIOG meeting would look like. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the group looked at the whole of transformation across the CYPE Directorate; the work of IMPOWER was on every agenda and included a progress update, a presentation and a report. Members asked if the TIOG had any independent members, and the Director of Education explained that this was an internal meeting chaired by the Corporate Director of CYPE, but that this may be reviewed at a later date to include external partners should it be thought that this would better serve the aims of the TIOG. The Children’s Lead of the Improvement and Assurance Panel was a member of the TIOG.

The Sub-Committee asked what ‘success looked like’ from this programme and heard that this would be a sustainable and resilient model for Children’s Services, which delivered better outcomes for families at a lower cost to the Council. Members were informed that there would be a clearer picture of exactly what this looked like once ‘Amplified Analysis’ work had concluded. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that better outcomes would be demonstrated through sustained improvement in the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the Mayor’s Business Plan at a minimum, and a reduction in the overall cost of delivering services. Members asked what better outcomes looked like for children and the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People responded that reducing the number of times that children needed to change placements, or children receiving services that better met their needs, e.g. moving from a placement to foster care or, if possible, back to their homes, would all demonstrate improved outcomes for children and young people; the importance of keeping the child at the centre of the conversation and decisions was highlighted.

The Sub-Committee asked for further clarification on what constituted ‘quick wins’ and Head of Performance & Business Improvement responded that this was divided into two elements. The first was the ‘Valuing Care’ approach, which was intended to provide improved outcomes for children and young people at a reduced cost; the second was around managing demand and service remodelling to look at how the workforce could be deployed differently to drive efficiencies through more effective working.

The Chair asked about the early insights from the ‘Amplified Analysis’ or as a result of engaging with partners. The Director of Education explained that the ‘Amplified Analysis’ was still ongoing but that information could be shared with the Sub-Committee once this was concluded. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the outcomes of the ‘Amplified Analysis’ still needed to go through a process of ratification and interrogation before they could be shared. The Sub-Committee heard that that over 3 million lines of data had been shared with IMPOWER, that showed information on children’s journey through Early Help and Children’s Social Care, as well as information from 12,000 child and family assessments to gain an understanding of the complexity of cases and demand on services; this information would be used by IMPOWER through a process called ‘Journey Mining’. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that IMPOWER would also be showing the local authority how to undertake these processes itself.

Members asked how ‘Journey Mining’ worked, and heard that cases were looked at for every contact the Council had with a child or family to map this data to understand how children had moved through the system, as well as overall trends, to identify things that could be done differently to improve outcomes. The IMPOWER representative explained that they would be using a ‘listening tool’, which was a large language model, and data analysis experts. Members heard that this exercise would help Croydon to articulate what was happening in the locality to partners, such as the Department for Education (DfE), through evidence assembled from the overall ‘Amplified Analysis’.

The Vice-Chair highlighted the large cohort of children looked-after in Croydon and asked if this affected IMPOWER’s confidence in their ability to apply their usual approach for the Council. The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People explained that Croydon was no longer an outlier in this regard when compared to statistical neighbours. The IMPOWER representative explained that operational service reviews would look at the history and current context of services to deepen it’s understanding of the Croydon context. It was acknowledged that challenges in Croydon reflected national difficulties with the children’s care placements market and that this had been reflected in meeting with other London boroughs. The Sub-Committee heard that IMPOWER were aware of children in care who could, with the right support, move to placements that better supported their needs and that IMPOWER were confident it could identify these opportunities for better outcomes. The IMPOWER representative explained that the work taking place currently was designed to build a rounded picture of what was happening in Croydon to inform recommendations to the Council of where the biggest impacts could be made.

Members asked what engagement would be happening with children and families as part of the Council’s work with IMPOWER. The IMPOWER representative explained that IMPOWER was working with the CYPE participation lead to co-design a survey with young people that would be promoted through the Children in Care Council and Care Experienced Young People. IMPOWER were working with the Participation Team to deliver a wider engagement event in October 2024, which would also be co-designed with young people, alongside discussions with parent groups and education forums. The Sub-Committee were informed that IMPOWER had an internal expert working with the Participation Team around engagement and co-design.

The Sub-Committee asked whether the ‘priority areas’ would be changed as a result of engagement with parents and young people, and IMPOWER explained that these would be decided and defined by the Council and TIOG once the ‘Amplified Analysis' was completed. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the Council was progressing a three phased approach that started with the ‘Amplified Analysis', with ‘quick wins’ being considered concurrently due to the needed pace of change. The second phase would use the ‘Amplified Analysis' to develop a cost/benefit model with possible outcomes and impacts. The third phase would look at the model to develop an implementation plan; the importance of choosing the correct programme was highlighted, but it was explained that this would evolve as the situation in Croydon changed.

Members raised concerns that the stakeholder engagement would come after the ‘Amplified Analysis' phase and that this might exclude the voices of children and families. The Director of Education highlighted that IMPOWER would be with the Council for three years, and that engagement would happen throughout this period, as well as engagement through existing routes. The Sub-Committee heard that it was important for the Council to determine what changes it could implement rapidly as part of the ‘quick wins’ programme, as well as identify areas for longer term transformation.

The Sub-Committee asked for more information on the ‘Valuing Care’ training delivered to social workers, and the IMPOWER representative explained that the training explained the approach, the reasons behind it, and how to use the ‘Valuing Care’ tool. Training sessions were active and involved completing a ‘Valuing Care’ profile to help social workers understand the tool. Members heard that the tool was ‘instinctive’ and written in accessible language that would be understandable by children and young people. Members heard that social workers had fed back that the tool had helped them to be reflective around the needs of children and families. Members were informed that social workers only needed to attend one session, but could return to drop-in sessions if they wanted to or needed a refresher.

The Sub-Committee asked who had to complete the ‘Valuing Care’ training and how long it would take to complete training for all those who needed it. The IMPOWER representative explained that they had completed briefing sessions for a number of groups; these included independent reviewing officers (IROs), as well as service and team meetings. The social workers for the first 150 child cohort would be the first to be trained on the tool, as well as their respective team managers, service managers and heads of services. Members heard that feedback had been that the tool was useful to reflect on the needs of individual children and was already integrated into the case management system for ease of use and monitoring. The initial 150 child cohort only contained children currently in care.

Members asked how the initial 150 child cohort had been chosen, and heard that this list had been co-developed with the service, and included the children with the most expensive placements, cases where it was felt there should be Health contributions to placements, cases where there had been placement breakdowns, and cases where there had been a significant amount of family contact time. The IMPOWER representative explained that the idea behind this was to use the ‘Valuing Care’ tool to see where it could deliver savings for placements, but also how it could help in a number of other areas by identifying where there was scope to do things differently to achieve better outcomes for children.

The Sub-Committee asked about children with pressing needs who did not fit these categories and what would happen for them. The Director of Education responded that the initial cohort was a starting point, and that allocated social workers would continue to work with the children allocated to them. The IMPOWER representative highlighted the track record of the ‘Valuing Care’ approach and positive feedback from the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED) and social workers. Members heard that the the ultimate goal was to roll out the ‘Valuing Care’ tool across Children’s Social Care, but that the initial analysis would help to identify where Croydon could do things differently to reduce costs and caseloads whilst improving outcomes as part of normal business. The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People acknowledged concerns that social workers may feel overwhelmed with having to learn the ‘Valuing Care’ approach and explained that social workers had been enthusiastic about the initial roll out of the tool, with feedback having been that it was helpful both for children and themselves.

The Chair asked if ‘quick wins’ savings would be reallocated to other areas or counted as a budget saving, and heard from Head of Performance & Business Improvement that, given budget pressures, it would be a budget saving. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that that long term goal was for cashable savings and a sustainable Children’s Social Care department. The Vice-Chair acknowledged that both savings and improved outcomes for children were priorities for the Council, but asked which the higher priority was. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement responded that better outcomes led to better services, which led to more effective and efficient services; Members heard that because of this, the two priorities were not seen as necessarily separate.

The Vice-Chair asked if there had been any cases where the ‘Valuing Care’ approach had not been successful and what lessons had been learnt. The IMPOWER representative explained that the approach was live and always evolving iteratively. Members heard that very under pressure services, with a high turnover of social workers, could struggle with the approach as it required good knowledge of the children being worked with. The ‘Valuing Care’ approach had been co-developed with the sector had been adapted to reflect changes in social work practice, to include more accessible language, and as a result of direct feedback from children, young people and social workers. The Sub-Committee heard about ongoing ‘Valuing Care’ shared learning events with multiple authorities sharing knowledge and best practise.

The Sub-Committee asked how the insights learnt from the initial cohort of children who had been selected for the ‘Valuing Care’ approach would be scaled and applied to all children in care in Croydon. The IMPOWER representative explained that the insights from this cohort would be extrapolated to determine how better outcomes could be achieved for other children in care, and that the Council was looking to embed the tool and train all social workers in the long term. Members heard that some social workers using the tool were already enquiring about using it for their other cases.

The Chair asked how schools would be involved in this work, whether head teachers would be informed of the transformation programme, and whether schools were being worked with to identify complex cases. The Director of Education explained that IMPOWER would be invited to speak at the Croydon Education Partnership to speak about the work taking place; existing opportunities to engage with schools would also be utilised, such as breakfast and head teacher meetings. Members heard that, as this became business as usual, schools would be involved as they were already an important part of the social care journey and engagement and collaboration with schools would be ongoing. The Sub-Committee asked why schools had not been involved in the identification of the initial cohort of 150 children and the Director of Education explained that this was the very early stage of this work and that schools would be involved as the programme progressed.

The Vice-Chair asked what other partners would be involved in CYPE transformation work and Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the Education Partnership, the One Board, the Health Senior Executive group, the Croydon Safeguarding Children Partnership, and the Voluntary & Community sectors would all be engaged. Members heard that the Council was keen for the programme to be larger than Croydon and that a sustainable CYPE department absolutely included strong partnership working.

Members noted 3.21 of the report, and asked how positive outcomes as a result of IMPOWER’s work were determined. The IMPOWER representative explained that these were children who had placement moves or returned home for a sustained period as a result of initial assessment work where this had been the right decision for the child. The Sub-Committee heard that these figures had been signed off by the respective Councils. The IMPOWER representative offered to share the full impact report the figures had been taken from.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee concluded that it would continue to monitor the work taking place in this area and add a further update on the Children, Young People and Education Directorate Transformation to its Work Programme following the conclusion of the ‘Amplified Analysis’ stage.