Meeting documents

The Chair of the Committee will allow members of the public, who have registered, to ask a question/s and/or make a statement/s about any matter on the agenda for this meeting. Each member of the public that has registered to speak is allocated 3 minutes.  

At the Chair’s discretion, questions and statements from the public may be taken during the meeting, when the relevant agenda item is considered.  

There were a number of questions submitted by members of the public regarding agenda item 10 - Update on CAF-14b Proposals for the alteration and / or reduction of early help services provided to children and their families – ‘getset’. The Chair invited the following speakers to ask their questions.

 

Elvira Elliott on behalf of the "Parents and carers of GETSET" group, RE: 3.2

"A lead practitioner should undertake the assessment, provide help to the child and family, act as an advocate on their behalf and co-ordinate the delivery of support services. A GP, family support worker, school nurse, teacher, health visitor and/or special educational needs co-ordinator could undertake the lead practitioner role.

Decisions about who should be the lead practitioner should be taken on a case-by-case basis and should be informed by the child and their family."

Question: This was the caseworker from GETSET at level 2. now who would that lead practitioner be given that social services, teachers, health visitors, SENCO’s and doctors are overloaded and understaffed already, school nurses are a rarity, family support workers are (or were) GETSET?

RE: 3.6

"Safeguarding Partners (Local Authority, police and the Clinical Commissioning Group) and other stakeholders across SCC, District Councils, NHS agencies in Somerset, schools and early years settings, the police, housing providers, and the charitable, voluntary and community sectors"

Who out of these is going to provide the sort of groups and keyworker support that GETSET were providing up to this point (albeit in reduced form due to previous cuts)? If the answer is volunteers and parents that is not good enough as detailed in my previous communication with the GETSET consultation.

RE: APPX 1 RE: 1

Question: what is to keep the remaining staff in their jobs for another year knowing their jobs will not last? Staff morale is at an all-time low. Many have already taken voluntary redundancy costing thousands of pounds in settlements because the cut was initiated before the consultation on impact had been carried out. A decision informed by what we now know to be dubious data and incorrect assumptions. How can the service now function for another year with so few staff left?

"The team will deliver a "train the trainer" model for evidence based parenting

programmes open to any community / voluntary group to enable them to identify and support more vulnerable families and run parenting programmes". Question: this raises several serious concerns. Firstly, that the staff should have to train their replacement to work for free, knowing their own job is to end next year. This is frankly an insult to their many years of work and training.

Secondly, does the idea of parents approaching their peer group (volunteers and community groups) for parenting support not create a particularly problematic power dynamic? This could easily lead to social exclusion and gossip. How is privacy safeguarded in such a situation like delivering parenting courses? Under this model anyone who wants to get involved can find themselves in a position of power over and in possession of very personal information about another person in their peer group. How is accountability to be dealt with under this scenario?

What does "Train the trainer" mean in this context? Who are these people trained by a chain of other people answerable to? Short in-house workforce training programs cannot equate to and should not replace a range of multidisciplinary professional qualifications? The home-start model was designed to augment not replace other professionally provided services.

Who is delivering TTT? How long for and what level of program?

Why is it felt that unqualified people can do this specialised work? Specialist knowledge of child development and child protection is needed.

"The team will move to providing group work and building resilient community settings, rather than individual case work"

This is literally a cliff edge for the families who are currently being supported by level 2 key workers.

"working alongside other key agencies that support 0-4 year olds eg health visitors and Early Years settings"

Question: Health visitors are also being cut and some replaced by assistant health visitors. Early years settings are struggling to cope with the new demands of the 30 hours placements and cannot take on case work. How can early years settings help parents who cannot afford to have their child in a nursery and do not qualify for funding?

How can these two realistically take on any of the work of the GETSET staff?

"The team will align with the Public Health Nursing teams and be allocated across the 8 family hubs; they should act as community agents and help partners through training to

identify and provide support for families so that partners can continue this once the getset level 2 service ends in March 2020. "

Question: Again, we have the reference to partners. Who will provide playgroups and level 2 keyworkers? The police? The housing association? Nhs clinics? The answer cannot be "volunteers" and "community groups" unless the council has actually identified specific volunteers and groups who are prepared to take this on forever, for free and have the capacity to do so. I see nothing here to replace GETSET. I see no evidence that volunteers and community groups with the capacity to help have been identified and that such groups would not also be overstretched with trying to run the libraries and other services. As the GETSET users from our group have made quite

clear, we cannot give that amount of time commitment and work for free. There is a huge difference between people who put their names down on a piece of paper wanting to "help" in vague terms and people who will actually turn out week after week to run groups unpaid. Parents with young babies will not be able to do much and people with school age children will have moved on from GETSET so there is a very narrow window of volunteering time. There will be constant churn. If you ask the question : your service

is going to be cut do you want to help it continue? of course people will say yes. The questions on the consultation were very loaded in this way.

RE: 2

"Empower parents/carers to be confident in utilising self-help methods to increase selfreliance, in line with SCC’s digital strategy, by: o Signposting families via Somerset Choices and the local offer"

Question: this is nothing more than victim blaming. Parents are struggling with serious issues like universal credit, housing, and domestic abuse. The entire point of GETSET universal and level 2 support is for parents who need help. Self-reliance is a bit difficult when your partner walks out leaving you and two autistic under-5s with no money from UC for 6 months. (real life example of a GETSET user).

Support services in our area are woeful and often inaccessible to people in rural communities. There is no point signposting to charities and organizations who are already overwhelmed. Having lived in Somerset with small, SEN children for years I am wondering again, who are these organizations and specifically which of them will be delivering playgroups and keyworker support for families who have multiple issues and needs? It is not good enough to keep referring to "partners" and "organizations" unless the council has identified which ones have the capacity to take over specific aspects of

GETSET’S work.

"Redesign and resourcing of Somerset Direct (SD) to be first point of contact for young people and families (based on adults model) providing advice and guidance in a more comprehensive way, only referring onto the Early Help (EH) Advice Hub if appropriate "

Question: A phone number/webpage is no substitute for a universal playgroup where highly trained staff can observe children and parents. What about someone who has post-natal depression and just needs to see a smiling face and be listened to in a non-judgmental way? A 2 week wait for the GP could mean the difference between suicide and treatment. A physical place where you can drop in for advice while your child plays is incomparable. What mitigation will be in place to prevent children who are not in school or nursery from falling through the cracks? How will the council ensure that every hard to reach parent in Somerset knows that they are to direct all their parenting/life problems to a customer service enquiries line or a "portal"?

RE: 3

Question: What capacity does community connect, an organization which helps the elderly and disabled stay in their own homes and live independently have to provide children’s services? What relevance does their work and resources have to providing Children’s services? How could this be achieved without compromising the service they currently provide? If recruitment and commissioning is going to have to be used to set up a whole new wing of community connect, why not just call that thing GETSET, retain the staff and children's centres and equipment?

"This fund will be facilitated by SCC with application/tender panels drawn from the multiagency Early Help Commissioning and Area Advisory Boards to seed fund support at level 2 and 3 of need."

Question: how are services going to be funded when the seed funding runs out? Who is going to deliver this support? "larger voluntary and community sector "

Question: once again, has the council actually identified volunteers and organizations which have the capacity to take on GETSET’S workload, which is bound to increase as universal credit rolls out to more families?

"Utilise Somerset Choices and the SEND Local Offer as key resource of information, advice and guidance to families by ensuring community groups, support and activities are widely publicized, thereby supporting individuals to help themselves and promote

independence."

Question: There’s no point publicizing what barely exists. What groups have been identified that serve rural areas of Somerset? Are these activities inclusive and affordable to the poorest and hardest to reach families? If the children's offer is not reaching these families it is failing.

RE: 5

"Clear vision and communications and marketing to promote and engender support for early help in Somerset o Refresh and implementation of the EH strategy, offer and approach across Somerset o Measuring impact and effectiveness of EH across the "system" o Holding partners to account o Two way link with each of the EH Area Advisory Boards o Stronger voice of families and an ambition to co-produce.

4 "Greater presence from the community and voluntary sector"

Question: This all sounds like management speak. What does any of it mean in specific concrete proposals? Some of these aren't even proper sentences.

Question: Troubled families is generally held to have been a failed approach. How specifically will implementing this approach help GETSET users?

RE APPX 3: The council’s response.

Observations:

3.4 "There appeared to be some concern that volunteers are untrained or unable to provide high quality support for children and families."

The response to this is two cherry picked statistics about two small organisations. I dare say I could find 2 examples of volunteer driven incentives which have not gone so well. What evidence is there that these two organizations or any others have spare capacity?

3.6 "There remains a range of support via casework available at level 2 and 3, from both the council (see appendix 1 below) and other partners eg health visitors and PFSAs for school age children that will continue."

The health visitor service is not in a position to do what GETSET were doing. It is already overstretched and to be cut further. There is nothing else for preschool children at level 2. This answer is utterly disingenuous.

4 .1 I find the suggestion that parents said they were against seed funding because they didn’t understand the question to be utterly insulting and laughable. Parents are against seed funding because it is unsustainable. We want children's services funded in perpetuity.

4.2 There is a big difference between putting your name down and actually giving your time and labour for free forever. The notion of "helping" could mean anything from sharing on facebook to holding a bake sale. Only a tiny number if any would actually be able to commit to running groups long term which would be equivalent to a part time unpaid job.

Overall

These responses and proposals are formed around a major assumption that other groups and "partners" have the capacity to take on GETSET’s workload. There is only a year to have it all in place and the caseload is likely to increase in that time with universal credit poised to throw families into chaos. The assumption that there is an endless supply of competent volunteers is highly flawed. Nothing in this proposal is backed up by any convincing data. It is simply an attempt to push the responsibilities of the council onto other organisations with no realistic assessment of how feasible that is.

There are no costings here. There is no thought given to staff retention. The council needs to show data to prove that every family that needs support can be supported with a seamless transition by one of these other organisations, and not put on a waiting list, "signposted" in circles or directed to a service they cannot realistically access.

Finally, how is accountability and oversight going to be meaningfully carried out if the service is fragmented in the way that is being suggested?

 

RESPONSE: Thank you for your submission which contains a number of observations, concerns and questions, too many to respond to here so a full written response will be provided.

However to address your key points now - The recommendations included in the papers are currently draft proposals for change, subject to Cabinet approval. If approved more detailed scoping and plans will be needed.

We are proposing to retain the Level 2 getset work, which covers 0-4 children’s centre activity, for a further 12 months over this development period and will move to offering more group work. The needs of the users of the getset level 2 service is varied and can include support around bedtime routines, potty training, school readiness, positive play.  These needs could be met through themed nurture groups in future. In addition, we would run regular family support drop in sessions in local community venues to provide assistance on a range of subjects including parenting, financial issues, housing support, advice on benefits etc.  This service could be offered by staff from within the council such as libraries and other partner organisations such as housing providers, district councils and health colleagues. 

The train the trainer model will identify suitable practitioners to be trained in agreed evidence-based parenting programme(s) which they can in turn, train other agencies in who provide 0-4 services such as nurseries, reception classes etc. This model has been successfully implemented in the West Somerset Opportunity Area and now many early years settings and the voluntary sector who have received training in the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) parenting programme can support parents of young children in the West Somerset area with their parenting.  

 

In terms of statutory responsibilities this is laid out in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 guidance:

"Everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe. No single practitioner can have a full picture of a child’s needs and circumstances and, if children and families are to receive the right help at the right time, everyone who comes into contact with them has a role to play in identifying concerns, sharing information and taking prompt action." 

This means that all agencies have a responsibility within Somerset to be a lead professional where appropriate, to complete Early Help Assessments, ensuring children/young people and families receive the right support at the right time.  Indeed, Somerset’s early help offer comprises a range of level 2 support for children aged 0-4 and some of these were included in the consultation papers and in the papers today.

In terms of nursery places, there is a national universal entitlement which provides nursery places for three and four-year olds.  Two-year olds who meet the eligibility criteria can also access nursery placements.

 

Our proposals include strengthening the first point of contact for a family, including website information and advice that is available on Somerset Choices and the local offer for children with SEND.

 

For clarity, Somerset Direct is the council’s call centre and has highly trained staff who can provide advice, guidance and signposting via email or on the phone, and we are considering how this can be improved even further.

We also want to look at learning from adult services as to how community connects could be extended to provide help to children and families.

 

Our proposal is to establish a fund that can be used to start groups and activities, but we will also have staff that can work with these groups to find other sources of funding. National funding bodies have reported that Somerset’s take up of third sector funding is disappointingly low. For your information, often local authorities are unable to access these sources of funding. We want to work actively with the voluntary and community sector and secure more external funding into the county. We know this can take time so would ensure seed funding is provided over a period of time to allow bidding application processes to happen.

 

To answer the point regarding Troubled Families a summary of key benefits from the Annual report of the Troubled Families Programme 2017-18 are listed below. 

• 92,245 have families been supported to achieved significant and sustainable progress with the Troubled Families Programme March 2018 compared March 2017 (44,000 families)
• The programme is driving service transformation in local authorities
• The programme is driving change in the way frontline staff in different services support families
• Families have appreciated the way family keyworkers take the time to understand the family, build relationships and trust.
• With demand rising on children’s social care nationally, the Troubled Families Programme’s early evaluation results showing reduced demand on children’s social care are particularly encouraging (Child In Need 13%, Looked After Children 49%, relative to the comparison group)
• Children across the county are improving their school attendance through the Troubled Families Programme
• The Troubled Families Employment Advisers provide valuable support to individuals to help them move towards work
• The Troubled Families Programme has provided the platform and resources to catalyse the whole family approach.
• The programme helps families avoid statutory intervention
• Keyworkers prioritise problems of safeguarding or child protection when goal-setting and working with families
• Keyworkers are co-working with social workers on child protection cases
• The programme has helped one or more adult in 13,907 families to move into continuous employment

To provide some Somerset context, since April 2015, 1,479 families have made significant positive outcomes in least two of the below 6 areas:

• Crime and anti-social behavior
• School attendance
• Children who need help
• Worklessness or financial exclusion
• Domestic abuse
• Health problems

9,535 have been worked with using the Troubled Families methodology (one workers, one plan, whole family assessment). 

 

Nigel Behan

Question 1 Relates to Item 10 Update on CAF-14b Proposals for the alteration and / or reduction of early help services provided to children and their families - 'getset'

Paragraph 5.2 states: "The early help arrangements in Somerset, whilst improving as indicated by Ofsted, have still some way to go to become more effective across the partnership."

and

5.3 states: "The proposal is to retain the level 2 service for a further year to March 2020,

in which time further development work can be undertaken with partners and the community and voluntary sector to develop Somerset’s early help offer."

Does "develop" include the option of SCC continuing to be the Prime Service Provider for the Early Help Offer (following further consultation and analysis of any relevant empirical data in Somerset and other (comparable) Local Authority Areas?

 

Response: The council has a statutory role to ensure there is a joined-up approach to early help with its key partners ie health, police, early years sector etc. The proposal to retain the level 2 service for a further year, until March 2020, is to enable us to spend more time developing that approach and the offer. The council already funds or provides a range of other support across level 2 and 3 which are detailed in today’s scrutiny papers.

 

Question 2 Relates to the Transfer of Health Visitors from Somerset Partnership to Somerset County Council (2019)

Have the recent changes and proposals (known as) and corresponding to CAF 14a and

CAF 14b made any changes to the planning for the integration of Health Visitors and School Nurses into Somerset County Council – are HV and SN more likely to spend more time as "lead practitioners" if there has been a reduction in Level 2 in Getset?

 

Response: At the end of the current contract for Health Visitor (HV) and School Nursing (SN) with Somerset Partnership, the HV and SN services will transfer to Somerset County Council (SCC) and we are working productively together across these 2 organisations to ensure service continuity.

 

Phase 1 of the Family Support Service (FSS) was always aiming to focus on the smooth transfer of staff into SCC. The development of the FSS (Phase 2) i.e. the integration with early help services, is currently paused pending the outcome of the consultation on early help services and the subsequent decision to be taken by cabinet in February 2019. We will then rescope the proposed integration, should this be required.

Regarding lead professionals, HV are commonly the lead professional for children aged under 5 years, as they have a lot of contact and expertise with families with additional needs. However, the lead professional can come from any service and must be agreed with the child, young person or their parent/carer.

For school age children there are many professionals who can fulfil this role and it is likely that this will continue as getset level 2 worked with children aged 0-4 yrs so did not have a role with school age children, so the inputs of SN are likely to be unchanged by this decision.

 

Eva Bryczkowski

The government has cut the funding for children's services nationally and locally.

Somerset County Council has had extremely tough choices to make regarding where and how to spend the limited amount of money they have available.

A report has just come out by the National Audit Office, with evidence that there has been a substantial increase in cases of child neglect and abuse. Regarding the cuts in funding by the government, social workers, for example, report that because they have huge caseloads, often the easiest and safest choice is to put children into care rather than offer support to struggling families.

QUESTION 1:

GETSET has been given another year to carry on its role of supporting children and families. As the Council continues to struggle with the shortfall in funding from the government, might it be a false economy to not put a lot more money into this service?

Otherwise, if families with children are not given enough support, the same thing could happen locally.

 

RESPONSE: Our proposals outline how the council will lead a multi-agency response to providing early help for families. The council has invested, and will continue to fund, level 3 services which also provides support to families with more complex needs, before statutory social care intervention is required. The National Audit Office (NAO) report on "Pressures on children’s social care" is very timely as it lays out recent trends in pressures on children’s social care and the response of both national and local government to these pressures. Amongst its key findings are that "Local authorities which have closed children’s centres have not had any consequential increases in child protection plans. We found that the closure of these centres has not resulted in increased statutory children’s social care activity. Indeed, for those local authorities which had closed centres there was a slight fall in the number of child protection plans in future years"

 

QUESTION 2:

Regarding the massive cuts in funding mentioned above, might it be a good idea for Councillors to lobby the government a lot more assertively and forcefully, (in a polite manner), in order to be able to increase the help desperately needed by children and families?

For example, certain Councillors could mention that some, or many of them, risk losing votes as a consequence of making these cuts, which might possibly have a negative effect on the present government's votes, both locally and nationally.

 

RESPONSE: This is a question for Councillors to respond to.

Senior council officers have and will continue to lobby government on funding.