Appendix 1- List of people/services engaged
Session |
Job Title |
Date |
1:1 sessions |
Executive Director - Families, Children & Learning |
July 2021 |
Assistant Director - Education & Skills |
||
Assistant Director - Health, SEN & Disability |
||
Assistant Director - Children's Safeguarding & Care |
||
Head of Service - Children's Safeguarding & Care |
||
Service Manager - Safeguarding & Quality Assurance |
||
Front Door for Families Service Manager |
||
Children's Centres Service Manager |
||
Integrated Team for Families Service Manager |
||
Starting Well Programme Manager, Public Health |
||
Principal Education Psychologist & Head of Inclusion Support Services |
||
Andy Richbell (headteacher)
|
||
Andrew Saville (Sussex police)
|
||
Eclipse Programme Manager |
||
Small group sessions |
Performance team |
August 2021 |
Midwifery |
September 2021 |
|
EMAS |
October 2021 |
|
Performance Team, IT business partner and IT&D |
September 2021 |
|
ITF Team Managers |
September 2021 |
|
Parenting Team Manager |
September 2021 |
|
Health Visiting & School Nursing |
October 2021 |
|
Primary Headteachers/ Deputies (x3) |
October 2021 |
|
Children’s Centre Team Managers |
September 2021 |
|
Drop in Sessions |
Housing representative, Amaze, Early Childhood Project Lead, Principal Social Worker |
September 2021 |
Staff engagement sessions |
Four Sessions: Children’s Centres, ITF, Parenting Team, FIS, Early Help Co-ordinators |
August and September 2021 |
DMT |
DMT members |
November 2021 |
Partnership Board Feedback Sessions |
Session 1: Housing representative, fire and rescue, education and safeguarding officer, safeguarding lead CCG, Sussex Police, CEO Hangleton & Knoll Project, Starting Well Programme Manager, Deputy Area Director - Children and Wellbeing Services Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust |
November 2021 |
Session 2: Fire and rescue, Director of Youth Work- Trust for developing communities, Head of YIACS and Targeted Services, Healthy Child Programme, Sussex CAMHS, Amaze
|
Appendix 2- Early Help Service Map
Appendix 3 – Early Help Referral Process Diagram
Appendix 4 - Options Considered
Return on Investment
Analysing 2020 published LAIT data we can identify that in 2020 the Rate of Children Looked After in Brighton was 74 per 10,000, compared to Brighton’s statistical neighbours who were at an average rate of 66 per 10,000. If Early Help maximises its effectiveness in reducing demand for statutory services and supports a reduction in the number of Children Looked After in line with statistical neighbours, based on 2020 figures this would equate to a reduction in expenditure of around £2m per annum.[1]
Options to be considered
In the development of the proposed model for Early Help as outlined in Recommended Future Model, Peopletoo considered a number of options identified below. Informed by the early conversations with key stakeholders, the presenting data and government policy/ initiatives, the crucial elements to include were identified as:
· Whole-family working
· Seamless and accessible to families, carers and young people
· Reflective of local needs
· Harnesses and values partners and community resources
In addition, given the financial constraints currently placed on Local Authorities there is also the need to consider budget feasibility.
Option 1: Do Nothing
Without any revision to the current model, there is a risk of increasing demand on statutory services as a result of demographic pressures and changing needs not being addressed.
It is also apparent that there is risk of inefficiency and duplication within the current process, which if not addressed will continue to adversely impact the effectiveness of services which currently make up the Early Help offer.
In addition, this is not supporting the delivery of key government initiatives in relation to Whole Family Working.
This option would require no additional investment.
Option 2: Redesign of in-house Early Help Services
Whilst a remodelling of existing in-house services would provide opportunity to address some of the key findings from the review in relation to defined pathways, simplification of referral routes and removal of duplication, it would not provide the opportunity to co-produce and develop place based working with partners. This option therefore would not address a critical challenge around ownership and accountability, with the council continuing to be seen by many partners as responsible for the delivery of Early Help.
There would be capital investment required in terms of addressing some of the IT issues identified within the review, and also transformation costs to support the implementation of the business case and restructuring that would be required. However, longer term we believe this could be delivered within the existing budget with reconfigurations of current teams/ staffing.
Option 3: Commission Early Help Externally
This option is not in line with the wider ambitions and ethos of BHCC and externally commissioning, without significant re-design, is unlikely to deliver the change required and improve outcomes for families.
This would require ongoing investment in commissioning and contract management expertise and would also require client-side oversight and governance.
There is also a risk that existing staff will not wish to TUPE to external agencies and that the experience and skills could be lost threatening at a minimum the delivery of current outcomes achieved.
Without soft market testing this option it is difficult to identify any additional third party expenditure, but it is likely that over time there would be a requirement to commission services to support gaps in identified needs, rather than being able to draw on partners and to reconfigure existing services, which would be more feasible under a place based model.
Option 4: Re-design Early Help Services and Development of a Place Based Model
This option is as outlined in the Recommended Future Model, which sees the redesign of internal Early Help services and the development of a place based model incorporating Family Hubs, Community Based Services and a Community Connector type role. It is recommended that four defined areas are created, identified by the service as being east, north, west and central parts of the city. Whilst the offer will be variable depending on an assessed level of need to support the local community, it is suggested that these are linked to school clusters, other public sector services, youth and the VCS offer. Within the model, BHCC resource will be focused on providing targeted interventions at tier 2 and above, with universal services being supported by the place-based model.
It is proposed that there is a reconfiguration of core Early Help services which include FIS, Children Centres, PACE, Parental conflict, ITF team, Parenting team and EH co-ordinators,into Family Hub Teams. It is envisaged that the VCS and Community based activities will continue as is but within the same place-based model, adopting a whole family approach.Longer term we would propose that where appropriate wider Council services that sit outside of the core EH services are incorporated within the Family Hubs, such as homelessness.
Preventative services currently commissioned should be evaluated and recommissioned where there is a need identified which is not currently being met, and ideally a joint commissioning plan with partners such as health developed. In the review undertaken by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) joint commissioning of services was seen by those developing family hubs as key to enabling multi-agency working. This is consistent with messages from practice from a range of studies of multi-agency systems which suggest that joint funding and commissioning arrangements are associated with better joined-up support systems of support / help for families.
With a complex array of providers involved in each local family hub network, joint commissioning bridges the gaps between organisations and makes clearer how families should journey through the network of services. Local partners can execute their vision and strategy for integration within their family hubs approach which can also act as an incentive for partners to join.
Capital investment will be required to support development of appropriate buildings for the Family Hubs / Children Centres and IT requirements. Longer term it is proposed that any further commissioning / provision of services is targeted and informed, and therefore addressed on a return-on-investment basis. Initial investment will be required to project manage and support the transformation activity and restructuring and resourcing required.
Summary
Based on our findings from the review, we have scored the following options against the deliverability of the critical outcomes identified as a result of this review. Scoring is based on 0 - not being met to 3 - highly met. As can be identified below the preferred option is option 4) which we have gone to outline in detail under the Recommended Future Model section of the report.
Options |
Assessment of Options Based on Deliverability of Critical Outcomes Identified 0 – Not Met / 1 – Low/ 2 – Medium / 3 – High |
Total |
||||
Whole Family Working |
Seamless & Accessible to Families |
Promotes Partnership Working |
Reflects Local Need |
Feasible within Funding Constraints |
||
1) Do Nothing |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
2) Redesign of in house Services |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
8 |
3) Externally Commission Early Help Services |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
4) Redesign Services into Place Based Model |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
14 |
Appendix 6 – Theory of Change