Meeting documents

To consider the report.

The Committee had a presentation on the Family Safeguarding element of the Somerset County Council Vision of Improving Lives. The aim is to prevent rather than react and to manage demand by working alongside communities to make best use of all Somerset’s available assets, providing the best possible outcomes and enabling communities to be strong and resilient. The Family Safeguarding part of this vision aims to deliver improved outcomes for families and reduce the care population, both in prevention and return home, and deliver support to families when they need it, reducing escalation and long-term trauma.  This presents an opportunity for a culture shift – innovation, empowerment, and staff feeling more valued—and for reducing the demand on emergency services (NHS & the Police) while delivering savings to Adult Services (Mental Health & Drug services).  The strategy will use a recognised practice model for effective family intervention.  Finally, the approach will address OFSTED’s criticisms of ‘less than good’ multiagency working between services for vulnerable families.

In January 2015, a ‘Hidden Harm’ needs assessment concluded that in Somerset there were 645 children with a Child Protection Plan in place, and of these, 18% had three hidden harm factors.  In August 2019, of 3735 children in need of protection or support in Somerset, 14% (528 cases) had three hidden harm factors and 70% had at least one factor. These can be identified as follows:

·         41% - domestic abuse (1530 children)

·         40% - adult mental health (1500 children)

·         21% - adult drug misuse (784 children)

·         18% - adult alcohol misuse (672 children)

To address this growing demand, a radical new approach is proposed.  The proposal is to adopt a model that has been successfully rolled out in Hertfordshire. This model relies on improved multi-agency working and has specialist workers at the heart of the team. Rather than individual assessment teams, the proposed model has integrated teams of enhanced practitioners supported by two psychologists. The model requires an investment of £3.5m, which will come from social care grant monies but will deliver sufficient savings to be self-sustaining after three years.  If successful, the model will deliver a more positive outcome for children, allowing them to remain with their birth family, with fewer needing to be the care of the local authority.  The success of the initiative depends on continued buy-in from partners and continued support from the Senior Leadership Team and Cabinet. The one foreseeable risk is the possibility of a follow-up inspection from OFSTED which will put any roll-out on hold for a couple of months.  An inspection is expected, but a date is not known, and it would not be desirable to be inspected whilst undergoing fundamental change.

The Committee discussed the presentation and asked about working in schools. They were assured that this all tied in with the Team Around the School and the Team Around the Child model.  The Committee was concerned about escalation, should a family with a ‘Hidden Harm’ refuse to acknowledge its existence and refuse to engage with the Safeguarding team. They were assured that the escalation route was through Child Protection.  The Committee was interested to know if the cuts to services had resulted in the intervention level being higher. They were assured that the Hertfordshire model successfully supported a range of families, and the key to successful intervention was to do it as early as possible and at a lower level.  So, this model would not increase the threshold for intervention.

The Committee was interested in child protection plans. They wanted to know if these have a fixed term, as some children appear to stop and then restart.  It was confirmed that this often occurs because the risk factors have been removed and then something happens within a family, requiring a further intervention.

There were also questions regarding recruitment and retention, as this has been a challenge in this sector. They were informed that this model made the role more attractive to the workforce, as it offered greater opportunity to develop skills across professional disciplines and greater job satisfaction.  The recruitment and commissioning of any staff is still in the early stages, and the exact type of contract has yet to be decided.  It emerged that Hertfordshire used a combination of contracted and commissioned workers.  Other local authorities are using this model, and it has been subject to an OFSTED inspection and found to be ‘Good’. The Committee were assured that the risk associated with an unplanned OFSTED Inspection would not lead to a dip in service but would result in a delay to the roll-out of the proposed new model of about a month.

The Somerset Scrutiny for Policies, Adults and Health Committee:

·         Considered and commented on the report.