Agenda item

Officers began their update by stating that they had bought this item to members for information and feedback. The purpose of the item overall was to show the volume and scope of the universal offer, the current environment and the shifts that were underway. This was a draft report and in future, it was envisaged that officers would report on this annually, to scrutiny. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

·       This was the first opportunity to have an integrated Bright Start report, as well as the first time that health data had been incorporated. Officers had also captured the volume of registrations for Bright Start services, activity data and demographic data, which had enabled resources to be shifted as required.

·       There were 697 maternal assessments given to mothers in Quarter Two.

·       The Families First for Children Pathfinder (FFCP) Programme was the result of a children’s social care review by the Department for Education (DfE). Part of the aim was to think about how social care and early help services could be run differently. The government had committed £2 million, for test and learning approaches. In the first wave last year, three or four pilots across the country were given the resource for this. The government had since tested interest for six bids as part of a second wave, for which Islington had submitted a bid.

·       There were several parts to the reform, including reviewing safeguarding partnership arrangements; a major piece of work around social care; the joining together of services and consideration given to running family services differently. 

·       Even if Islington’s bid was unsuccessful, there was now legal guidance to say that the Children in Need service did not need to be operated by qualified social workers, which could for example, include bringing in officers from Family Help. Officers stressed that Horizon Scanning was in place. It had also been ensured that Children in Need services were in the same ward locality format as bright start, bright futures and early help services, but concern had been raised in feedback from the Association of Directors of Childrens Services, regarding how a council would manage monitor risk.

·       Islington had a combined front door, unlike other local authorities. There was minimal transfer and changes of contact, bringing stability to families.

·       Members noted in the key findings, that there had been an increase in children attending SEND groups and enquired as to what that meant for children that then moved into schools. In response, members were told that the SEND groups currently delivered were interventions, which would then be followed by support. The intervention and support wouldn’t necessarily prevent SEND issues, but in the cases of developmental delay, the early support would likely prevent these issues becoming disorders, as the ability to change outcomes was greatest in early years.

·       Members noted that the many families came to Islington for the Bright Start provision, but enquired as to how a family support worker would cope, logistically or financially, with being a lead professional for no extra pay. In response, members were told that it was absolutely right to question the capacity of system and that the family need encompasses all – there were risks in the approach of treating all cases as though they were social services-related. There was already the right number of staff to manage the Children in Need cases and Early Help services, but officers were waiting to hear what learning will come out of the programme’s first wave.

·       Members were told that safeguarding partners were already starting to think about the rollout of family hubs. Families wanted to receive a service in their community that was accessible, and family based. A meeting had taken place whereby, discussion was had on how safeguarding influences family help services. The Fairer Together strategy had helped with that vision.

·       Members noted that the Quarter 4 registrations for those aged four, were at 106%, and enquired as to the reason behind the rise. In response, members were told that the Children’s Social Care review was very focused on decision making and families making decision for themselves and encompassed all work of the family. It wasn’t that 100% was being reached, but the data was sometimes elective and not always updated. Officers ensured there was a reduction in duplication of services by working with partners and utilising opportunities.

·       Members asked how officers adapted the offer to different groups of the community, to which the Committee were told in response, that some of the programmes were targeted. Data was used to identify gaps and challenges. An example was commissioning of tuition to Turkish and Somali children, some of which was able to be done internally. It was important that those that come through the universal service were then fed through to the specific service that captured their needs.

·       Members praised the Health Visitors’ work as exceptional.

·       Members voiced concern and questioned the possibility of how a volunteer, for example, would be quality assured / safeguarded, should the Government’s proposed approach allowing the work of a qualified social worker to be done by non-professionals, come to fruition. In response, the Committee were told that the current setup was for the safeguarding partnership to train staff and partner agencies. Partners were already required to have a designated safeguarding lead and there was already a good referral system; additionally, all staff were able to identify child abuse and any child in need of early, targeted support would have this overseen by a qualified social care manager. However, there would be a need to build in further mechanisms to manage those safeguarding risks, should more families were being worked with by a non-social worker, it is possible though. It was at the Council’s discretion to refuse the proposed changes currently, but there was always a possibility that in future, this could become a funding-dependent requirement.

·       Members noted that Islington had good practice currently, and enquired as to how, with all the proposed new initiatives, that good practice would remain. In response, the Committee were told that the ultimate responsibility would always sit in statute with the Director of Children’s Services, but it was a matter of ensuring the basics remained in place, that quality assurance methods were in place and that there was continuous auditing and reviewing with families and staff.

RESOLVED:

That the item be noted.