ctb agenda and papers 17-01-14
TRANSCRIPT
Leeds Children’s Trust Board
Meeting on Friday 17th January 2014, 9:30-12:30
VENUE: West room, Civic Hall, Portland Crescent, Leeds, LS1 1UR
AGENDA
Item Description
Time Page
1. Standing Items (Cllr Judith Blake)
1a. Welcome, Introductions, apologies and alternate representatives
9:30
1b. Minutes of the meeting on 8th November 2013 and matters arising (attached)
3
1c. Notes from the special meeting with young people on 9th December 2013 (attached)
13
2. Items for discussion/view
2a.
Budget Discussion (attached) – Neil Warren 9:45 17
BREAK
10:45
2b. Developing our responses to vulnerable children under five (attached) – Steve Walker/John Maynard
11:00 23
2c. Joint Commissioning Priorities 2014/16 (attached) – Paul Bollom
11:50 41
3. Items for information
3a. CYPP Dashboard (attached)
12:10 49
3b.
Reports from other sub groups/other partnerships: • MALAP (minutes attached) • CTB Workforce Reform and Practice Development Sub-Group
(minutes attached) • CTB CAMHS Task and Finish Group (minutes attached)
61
4. Other Items
12:20
4a. Any other business
5. Date of next meeting: Friday 7th March 2014, 9:30-12:30 Venue: West room, Civic Hall
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2
1
Leeds Children’s Trust Board Minutes of the meeting held on 08 November 2013 at the Civic Hall
Present: Nigel Richardson (Chair) Leeds City Council, Director of Children’s Services Cllr Roger Harington Leeds City Council, Elected Member Cllr Alan Lamb Leeds City Council, Elected Member Dr. Sharon Yellin Leeds City Council, Public Health, Consultant in Public Health Medicine (for Dr. Ian Cameron) Bridget Emery Leeds City Council, Environment and Neighbourhoods, Chief Officer Jane Mischenko Leeds Clinical Commissioning Groups, NHS Lead Commissioner (for Item 2a) Supt Keith Gilert West Yorkshire Police, Chief Officer, Community Safety Bryan Gocke Local Safeguarding Children Board – Business Manager (for Jane Held and Item 2c) Jim Hopkinson Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Targeted Services Neil Moloney West Yorkshire Probation, Head of Leeds Probation Ann Pemberton Young Lives Leeds, Manager, Home Start Leeds Dr. Helen Haywood Leeds Clinical Commissioning Groups, Associate Clinical Director Steve Wood Business Representative Elaine Wylie NHS England, West Yorkshire Area Team, Director of Operations and Delivery In attendance:
Andrea Richardson Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Early Help Services (for Item 2a) Sue Ranger Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Infant Mental Health, Consultant Clinical Psychologist (for Item 2a) Lisa Mincke Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Family Nurse Partnership Leeds, Supervisor (for Item 2a) Andy Lloyd Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Services Children's Workforce Development (for Item 2b) Lisa Banton Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Practice Development and Partnership Training Lead (for Item 2b) Mark Wilton Leeds City Council, Relationship Manager (for Item 2d) Andy Peaden Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Youth Offending Service (for Item 2e) Trevor Woodhouse Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Youth Offending Service, Youth Justice Officer (for Item 2e) Steve Walker Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Deputy Director (for Item 2f) Sue Rumbold Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Chief Officer (for Item 4a) Rob Kenyon Leeds City Council, Adult Social Care, Chief Officer Health Partnerships Anne Little Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Governance & Partnership Arfan Hussain Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Secretary Sinead McGuinness Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Secretary Sarah Hamid Leeds City Council, Children's Services, School Leaver Apologies:
Cllr Judith Blake Leeds City Council, Executive Lead Member for Children’s Services Cllr Sue Bentley Leeds City Council, Elected Member Cllr Jane Dowson Leeds City Council, Elected Member Alan Bolton David Young Community Academy, Assistant Principal Dr. Ian Cameron Leeds City Council, Director of Public Health (Rep Sharon Yellin) Martin Fleetwood Temple Moor High School, Principal Alison France Jobcentre Plus Jane Held Local Safeguarding Children Board – Independent Chair (Rep Bryan Gocke) Sam Prince Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust Chris Radelaar Children’s Centre Manager – Shepherd’s Lane Children’s Centre Diane Reynard SILC Principals, East SILC Peter Roberts Leeds City College, Chief Executive Hilary Devitt West CCG, GP Clinical Lead for Children Paul Brennan Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Deputy Director Sarah Sinclair Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Chief Officer
Item 1b
3
2
Item Action by
1.0 Standing Items 1.1 Welcome, introductions, apologies and alternative representatives
1.1.1 Nigel Richardson chaired the meeting. He welcomed all colleagues and apologies were noted.
1.2 Minutes of the meeting on 05 September 2013 and matters arising The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting with the following matters
arising:
1.2.1 Minute 2.2.5 – Paul Brennan to contact partnership organisations to feedback what contributions they can make for Leeds to become a NEET free city.
PB
1.2.2 Minute 2.3.3.3 – Rob Murray to contact Steve Wood in relation to the ICT system developed by IBM, which could allow for a learning opportunity for the One Stop Shop for young people. Steve Wood commented that he is in the process of contacting IBM and is also liaising with Dr. Helen Haywood for possible use with the CTB CAMHS Task & Finish Group.
RM
1.2.3 Minute 2.3.3.4 – Level of contribution and enthusiasm from partners for the One Stop Shop for young people has been good. Members agreed to receive an update at a future meeting.
RM
1.2.4 Minute 2.4.4 - Cluster Governance Framework has been amended to refer to 'Young Lives Leeds'. Ann Pemberton commented that Sue Rumbold had attended a Young Lives Leeds Forum meeting on 05 November 2013 where positive discussions took place on 3rd sector engagement with clusters.
1.2.4.1 Nigel Richardson informed members that Leeds City Council are in contact with the Children's Society and Prof. Alan Dyson, University of Manchester, on the exciting work he has undertaken on children's zones1, which has strong similarities with the cluster model in Leeds, on exploring the development of clusters. Members agreed to receive an update at a future meeting.
SR
1.2.4.2 Nigel Richardson informed members that Scrutiny Board (Children and Families) are currently undertaking an inquiry into clusters to explore its progress.
1.2.5 Minute 2.6.2 - Adult Social Care have been contacted to secure a representative as a member of the board. Anne Little to follow up.
Anne Little
1.2.6 Minute 4.1.1 - Nigel Richardson informed members that Leeds was successful in becoming a Health & Social Care Pioneer.2 Members agreed to receive the letter from the Department of Health awarding Pioneer status, which includes further details, and receive updates in the future.
Anne Little
2.0 A Items 2.1 Importance of Infant Mental Health and Attachment
2.1.1 Sue Ranger highlighted that there is currently a range of exciting work occurring in Leeds
1 For further information on children's zones see: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Developing_Childrens_Zones1.pdf 2 For further information see: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/integration-pioneers-leading-the-way-for-health-and-care-reform--2
4
3
around the area of Best Start, which focuses on the core prevention agenda for children aged 0-2 and is shown to have a significant impact on long term outcomes.3 She provided an overview of the research base stating that the approach's recent prominence is due to the accumulated body of evidence over a long time span. In particular, advances in brain imaging technology has evidenced that the experience of an infant, from pre-natal onwards, is impacted by their environment and has significant implications on their social, emotional and behavioural functioning with infants growing the brains they need to deal with their own environment (e.g. some will grow brains equipped to respond to love and good quality care and others to cope with abuse and neglect). Consequently, parents and carers of infants need to be supported from the vital period from conception to age 2 and workforce development for practitioners in this area.
2.1.2 Sue Ranger stated that the Infant Mental Health Service was commissioned in April 2012. It is a citywide service offering training, consultation and a referral service for families needing targeted interventions. In the previous 18 months, around 500 practitioners have received training, including Early Start teams and community midwifery, who have provided positive feedback.
2.1.3 Sue Ranger informed members that it has been evidenced that people learn parenting from their parents and through prevention and early intervention this cycle can broken. As a result, the children aged 0-2 who are engaged would benefit over a range of factors during their lifetime and be better parents themselves.
2.1.4 Members queried the economic benefit of Best Start. Jane Mischenko stated there are a range of models with investment of £1 showing a return of up to £9/144. Nigel Richardson commented that the positive impact of programmes, such as Best Start, on the lives of children, young people and families and its economic return, needs to be noted when including a CYP perspective into citywide strategies. There is an opportunity to develop this work under the new Pioneer status.
2.1.5 Lisa Mincke provided an overview of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP).5 The Leeds FNP team consists of 10 nurses who offer an intensive home visiting programme to first time pregnant teenagers until the child is aged 2 for the city. FNP has been running in Leeds since 2009 and one cohort has completed the programme. Lisa Mincke provided an overview of a case study and a video from a client on their positive experiences of the FNP programme.
2.1.6 Extensive discussion highlighted the following: 2.1.6.1 Lisa Mincke informed members that most of the referrals to FNP are from Teenage Pregnancy
3 For further information on the importance of this period, please see '1001 Critical Days: The Importance of the Conception to Age Two Period' http://www.andrealeadsom.com/downloads/1001cdmanifesto.pdf and 'Conception to Age 2: The Age of Opportunity' http://www.wavetrust.org/key-publications/reports/conception-to-age-2. 4 For further information see 'Conception to Age 2: The Age of Opportunity', p5: "A review was conducted of a wide range of published UK and international studies into the economic case for investment in the early years. The consensus from even the most cautious and circumspect non-UK randomised control trials suggested returns on investment on well-designed early years’ interventions significantly exceed both their costs and stock market returns, with rates of return ranging from $1.26 to $17.92 for every $1 invested. UK studies showed a similar pattern of results: 9 Social Return on Investment studies showed returns of between £1.37 and £9.20 for every £1 invested. 5 For further information on Family Nurse Partnership see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216864/The-Family-Nurse-Partnership-Programme-Information-leaflet.pdf.
5
4
Midwives. Other referrals come from Looked After Nurses and Probation. As FNP accept clients up to the age of 19 they are exploring the possibility of gaining general referrals from hospitals. Due to capacity, around 17.5% of the Leeds eligible population are able to access the programme. There is a plan to increase the number of nurses in the team in 2014 to be able to accept around 20% of the Leeds eligible population. Furthermore, there is a multiagency FNP Advisory Board for Leeds, which considers what criteria should be prioritised in the city in order to access the FNP programme.
2.1.6.2 Lisa Mincke informed members that Clients are referred back to the Early Start Service when the child turns 2 years old with continued support from a Health Visitor and access Universal Services.
2.1.6.3 Lisa Mincke informed members that a range of data is collected on a number of indicators to monitor the progress of clients and the programme. Moreover, Leeds FNP has been part of a national trial from 2007 and is awaiting the findings, which should be released in Spring 2014.
2.1.6.4 Jane Mischenko recommended to members the 'Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2012 - Our Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays', which was published in October 2013 (link provided at the bottom of the page).6 She highlighted that the importance of a strong evidence base in order to gain resources for programmes such as FNP and commented that the Chief Medical Officer has requested a review of the Healthy Child Pathway due to its evidence base.
2.1.7 Nigel Richardson stated there is a need to consider further the implications of the item and next steps given the discussions of the board, Best Start being a priority for the Health & Wellbeing Board and the opportunity presented by gaining Pioneer status. Members agreed for a small task & finish group to be established to consider how to increase the level of resources for Best Start consisting of Sue Rumbold, Jane Mischenko, Sharon Yellin and other officers and to feedback at the next meeting under matters arising.
SR, JM & SY
2.1.8 Nigel Richardson emphasised the importance of the positive outcomes that could be gained in a range of areas through significant investment in Best Start. Members agreed for Jane Mischenko to confirm the cost of the FNP.
JM
2.1.9 The chair thanked Jane Mischenko, Sue Ranger, Lisa Mincke and Andrea Richardson for their contribution.
2.2 Workforce Development Strategy Andy Lloyd gave members a presentation on the Workforce Development Strategy highlighting
the following:
2.2.1 The Children's Workforce Development team is the amalgamation of a number of different teams, which had some responsibility for workforce development activities within Children's Services.
2.2.1.2 The strategy takes into consideration the national context with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child and the need to ensure that as policy documents are published, laws enacted and guidance issued that our training courses reflect
6 'Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2012 - Our Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays' can be accessed via https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255237/2901304_CMO_complete_low_res_accessible.pdf
6
5
the latest requirements. Furthermore, it recognises the importance of the local context of Leeds' Children and Young People's Plan.
2.2.1.3 It is essential that any work undertaken with children, young people and families is underpinned by clear values, attitudes and behaviours. The Voice & Influence team, Workforce Development team and young people from the Youth Council delivered an event on Values, Attitudes & Behaviours on 17th September 2013. The outcome of the event was a short video from young people at the event stating what they would like the values, attitudes and behaviours to be for the partnership. The event is the beginning of this process and the aim is produce a series of Child Friendly Leeds short films encapsulating the voice of the child on what the values, attitudes and behaviours should be for the one children’s workforce and their expectations, which will be used in a variety of settings such as workshops, inductions, etc. This will occur through future events, which members will be invited to.
Andy Lloyd
2.2.1.4 The core principles for the strategy are that the work of the partnership will be child centred, restorative in nature and research informed.
2.2.1.5 The learning and development offer will consist of: • Regular calendar of training which will run every year. • Bespoke training that addresses service specific issues (e.g. new policy, law or
guidance). • Summer schools, blitzes where large numbers of the workforce can receive training in
a short space of time (e.g. in a two week blitz 600 people received restorative practice awareness training) and big venue showcases.
• Bought in specialist training for very specialist skills and knowledge not currently available in Leeds.
2.2.1.6 An overview of the Children's Services Workforce Development Core Offer 2013/14, which will be available online and the aim to have service specific offers including career pathways.
2.2.1.7 The importance of partnership working with a range of organisations and boards, such as Higher Education Institutions, Health, 3rd Sector, Leeds Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), etc. and the ability to transfer knowledge to colleagues and partners around the city.
2.2.1.8 3 universities in Leeds, others in the region, nationally and locally offer an enormous academic resource to support our ambitions and inform best practice.
2.2.1.9 An additional training course for Restorative Practice will be offered by the end of 2013 titled, ‘Having difficult conversations restoratively’.
2.2.3 Bryan Gocke stated that the LSCB welcomed the strategy and allowing for partners to challenge each other on their attitudes, behaviours and when working children, young people and families. Members agreed for the strategy to include an aspect of monitoring and analysing its wider impact and the impact of individual training sessions on practitioners, multiagency working and services.
Andy Lloyd
2.2.4 Members agreed that videos developed on values, attitudes and behaviours should be meaningfully shared with all directorates within Leeds City Council and partners.
Andy Lloyd
2.2.5 Rob Kenyon stated that there are positive examples of integrated working from services engaged with children. However, there is a need to ensure that practitioners understand that
7
6
they do not only represent their service, but they are working for the child. Andy Lloyd commented that this would be expressed through the values, attitudes and behaviours and there may be a need for an event in the future to ensure they are embedded.
2.2.6 Jane Mischenko highlighted that the values, attitudes and behaviours should aim to produce a cultural shift for Leeds through focusing on the voice of the child and embedding restorative relationships.
2.2.7 Members agreed there was a need for the Children's Services Workforce Development Offer to have a prescribed list of training for which there would be a clear expectation that members of staff would undertake depending on their role. Furthermore, to further map out the partnership across the city and what courses they would benefit from.
Andy Lloyd
2.2.7.1 Members agreed to aim for a collective understanding of child and adolescent development across the partnership for workers that engage with Children's Services. This would include an overview of what it is like to be a child growing up in Leeds and an explanation of the evidence base that is informing practice for Children's Services (e.g. Best Start). There would be an expectation that partners would have a suitable level of awareness.
Andy Lloyd
2.2.8 Ann Pemberton stated that such an expectation could be included in the specification for commissioned services, but stressed the importance of commissioners to reflect the values, attitudes and behaviours as well.
2.2.9 Members agreed on the importance of training sessions to be multiagency in order to allow attendees to have a space to talk to each other and develop relationships and a greater understanding of each others' services. This can be instilled from the start of their career through shared inductions to promote the voice of the child in Leeds through common agreed courses across the partnership.
Andy Lloyd
2.2.10 Andy Lloyd, [email protected], asked if members could email him details of the training offered within their organisation.
ALL
2.2.11 The chair thanked Andy Lloyd for the presentation.
2.3 LSCB Annual Report 2.3.1 Bryan Gocke informed members that the LSCB Annual Performance Report (2012/13) was
presented to the Children’s Trust Board on 27 June 2013. This included a set of draft challenges for the board pending the completion of the LSCB Annual Report (2012/13). The final version of the report was agreed by the LSCB on 13 September 2013.7 The report evaluates the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for children and young people in Leeds and the effectiveness of the LSCB. The report positively highlights the progress made by the partnership on a range of indicators. In particular, the reduction in the need for children to become looked after, which can evidenced as occurring in a safe and considered manner. It also highlights a number of challenges for the city such as the need to review the Bereavement Services for families that have lost children, which the LSCB have found to be inconsistent in quality across the city. The board are asked to receive the report and reaffirm its commitment in the challenges set for 2013/14 by the LSCB.
2.3.2 Members agreed the recommendations of the report and for the challenges set by the LSCB to Anne
7 LSCB Annual Report (2012/13) can be viewed via http://www.leedslscb.org.uk/professionals/annual-report.shtml.
8
7
be incorporated into the board’s work programme. Little 2.3.3 The chair thanked Bryan Gocke for the report.
2.4 Leaders for Leeds 2.4.1 Matt Wilton informed members that in late 2012 there was a review into partnership working,
which agreed that a new and innovative approach was needed in the operation and functionality of the higher level of partnership structures. This resulted in the creation of the ‘Best City Leadership Network’, which:
• Consists of approximately 150 people engaged in key developments in the city • Focused as a communications and engagement network virtually and by other means. • Act as a ‘critical friend/partner’ to partnership boards.
This was combined with the existing Leaders4Leeds due to the complimentary ambitions. As a result the Leaders4Leeds website was re-designed to enable more effective virtual communications between partners with the aim of making connections, intelligence sharing and joint working.8
2.4.2 Partnership boards are encouraged to participate through the website and challenge if the network is able to meet their needs and to provide feedback. This can include two way dialogs to share issues and work collaboratively for solutions or to promote opportunities and positive work that is occurring. Furthermore, Leaders4Leeds are requesting the support of the board on how they can better reflect the voice of children and young people.
2.4.3 Members agreed for the board to produce key messages following meetings and areas of work, which can be uploaded on the Leaders4Leeds website as a mechanism to distribute it widely and circulated through other avenues.
Anne Little
2.4.4 Members recommended that Matt Wilton contacts the Youth Council, via the Voice & Influence Team, to ensure that the voice of young people are included and actively engaged with the website.
Matt Wilton
2.4.5 Members were informed that Leaders4Leeds have monthly breakfast meetings, which allow for partners to network and visit different agencies across the city. Members agreed to be included in invitations to future breakfast meetings.
Matt Wilton
2.4.6 Members emphasised the need for greater clarity on the levels of request for support and offers that can be placed on the network.
2.4.7 Members agreed the recommendations of the report and the chair thanked Matt Wilton for his presentation.
ALL
2.5 Review of Steinbeck Youth Custody Pilot 2.5.1 Andy Peaden stated that the Stainbeck Youth Custody Pilot has been welcomed by both the
Youth Offending Service (YOS) and police as improving safeguarding and promoting joint decision making regarding young people under arrest in Leeds as outlined in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment Offenders Act 2012. Furthermore, in April 2012, the High Court ruled that the treatment of 17 year olds in police custody, as determined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), was unlawful. It is anticipated to change in late 2013 to require an Appropriate Adult to be called to help a 17 year old, and for a person responsible for their welfare to be informed. West Yorkshire Police are already doing so with support from the
8 Leeds4Learning website can be accessed via http://leadersforleeds.com/.
9
8
pilot. 2.5.2 Andy Peaden informed members that areas of concern include:
• There is currently no provision of an appropriate adult service overnight once the YOS volunteer rota and Stainbeck based YOS staff finish at around 21:00. However, changes to PACE legislation means that all 17 year olds will require an appropriate adult when under arrest.
• Absence of any emergency short stay accommodation for young people aged under 16.
2.5.3 Trevor Woodhouse gave an overview of the day to day work at Stainbeck highlighting: • A YOS member of staff is present at Stainbeck 7 days a week, 09:00-21:00. • On arrival members of staff check the daily log and prioritise young people held
overnight and act as an appropriate adult where needed. • He emphasised the importance of information sharing and the positive impact had by
being able to access a range of databases (e.g. Social Care, Police, etc.) to develop a clearer picture of the young person and the support needed.
• Liaise and provide guidance to Police officers and other partners.
2.5.4 Members welcomed the pilot and the positive feedback that has been gained. Members agreed for Andy Peaden to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of the pilot and other indicators (e.g. % of young people in police custody due to no alternative accommodation as the sole reason).
AP
2.5.5 Members highlighted that a key issue is the need for a 24 hours, 7 days a week service. Moreover, while it may be positive for a young person not to be in police custody during the night, this must be balanced by the impact of uprooting the young person during the night to go to another accommodation.
2.5.6 Keith Gilert informed members that if a person is charged with an offence that is remandable to a court they will be placed in a police cell. The context of the item refers to two groups of young people that are:
• Bailable due to ongoing investigations or are suitable for charge, but can be released to a suitable address. When the complainant is the carer it may not suitable for a young person to return to the accommodation.
• In circumstances such as Breach of the Peace, a young person has been arrested and moved to a police station to prevent the situation from escalating. Normally, a young person is free to go within a few hours, but it may not be possible when the incident occurrs at home.
While the pilot has been positive, it has reinforced the concern that Emergency Duty Team are not structurally able to currently deal with such circumstances.
2.5.6.1 PACE beds apply to those who have been charged and should go to court, but as they are young people they should not be kept in police cells. There is currently no solution for this requirement nationally as police need to be assured that the young person will turn up to court, not commit further offences, etc. Work should be undertaken to develop a regional unit as the cost would be unaffordable for Leeds to develop such a service in isolation due to the small numbers of persons impacted.
10
9
2.5.7 Members agreed for a task and finish group to be established consisting of Steve Walker, Jim Hopkinson, Andy Peaden and Bridget Emery to consider a regional PACE bed unit and developing a 24 hours, 7 days a week service.
SW, JH, AP & BE
2.5.8 The chair thanked Andy Peaden and Trevor Woodhouse for the report.
2.6 Sufficiency Strategy 2.6.1 Steve Walker informed members that the Sufficiency Strategy relates to the obsession to safely
and appropriately reduce the need for children and young people to become looked after (CLA). Leeds are continuing to ‘Turn the Curve’ with the number of CLA in September 2013 being 74 less than at the same time last year and is currently at 1,352 CLAs. This has occurred through a range of approaches:
• Significant investment in Family Group Conferencing. • Range of support to maintain children and young within their families or through formal
and informal kinship arrangements. • Where this has not been possible, Children’s Social Work recognises the importance of
placing a child within their community. As a result, Leeds’ rate of children placed more than 20 miles from their homes is 11%, which is around half the national rate.
• Improved quality planning, which are implemented. • In the previous year, Leeds had the 2nd highest number of children adopted in the
country. • Work has been undertaken to improve foster carer recruitment and retention. • Restructuring of children’s homes informed by the voice of the child. Consultations with
CLAs have resulted in two principles for the restructure: o For it to be a ‘home’ that looks similar to other houses and as a result two
larger children’s homes will be closed in favour of three smaller ones. o Reduction in the number of external placements, which has lowered from 110
to 71 and estimated to reduce to the 50s by the end of 2013. Each external placement is planned and is based on what is required to meet the needs of the child.
2.6.2 Steve Walker highlighted future challenges such as the changing demographics of CLAs with the number of children becoming looked after aged under 4 being 61% in the last year in Leeds compared to 41% nationally. In following the strategy, it is estimated that by 2017 there will be around a 1000 CLAs in Leeds.
2.6.3 Members approved the strategy and thanked Steve Walker for the report.
3.0 B Items 3.1 CYPP Dashboard
3.1.1 The board noted the contents of the CYPP Dashboard.
3.2 Reports from other sub groups/other partnerships 3.2.1 The board received and noted the contents of the CTB CAMHS Task & Finish Group and
MALAP minutes.
4.0 Other Items
11
10
4.1 Any other urgent business 4.1.1 Sue Rumbold informed members that a joint workshop between commissioners and
representatives for children’s services across health, social services and the third sector considered the current Children’s Trust Board Commissioning & Finance arrangements. The purpose was to identify key priorities for future commissioning and subsequently to consider the roles of the group in light of CTB, Integrated Commissioning Executive (ICE), Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) and Transformation Board in supporting delivery of these priorities. Members recognised that there was a need for the sub group to adapt to the current commissioning landscape and to have a greater strategic focus with its links to the HWB and ICE strengthened.
4.1.2 The workshop agreed six proposed programmes detailed below and the need for the sub group to jointly report to ICE and CTB:
• Best Start • Care Pathway – Including preventing entry into care, children and young people who
are looked after and care leavers. • Emotional & Mental Health – Children & Adults • Best Transition to Adulthood – Education, Health & Skills • Complex Needs • Family Support
4.1.3 Members agreed to receive a further update at a future meeting. SR
5.0 Date and time of next meeting: Monday 09 December 2013, 18:00-20:00, Civic Hall
12
Foundation Stage Gap – discussion with youth councillors and Children’s Trust Board members Reflected that the gap in attainment between FSM / non-FSM children and young people is evident at all key stages from 5-19. In doing so there was an acknowledgement that while the equality gap resonated at 16 with GCSEs the importance may not always be highlighted in the pre-school years. A general comment was that the importance of pre-school learning and how this supports overall child development is not always shared. Child minding often dominates.
Suggestions:
• Overall these focused on: a) Ensuring access to good quality parental support and early years provision b) Reinforcement of the importance of learning in the early years of life and of the
need for all those providing services to parents and young children to understand how their activity contributes to this.
• Explore the data further to better understand the characteristics of low achievers including the 8% who score just 17pts. Consider both the common characteristics within this group but also if they had accessed pre-school provision and if so are there patterns in the effectiveness of the provision accessed.
• Promote positive messages on how babies and young children learn, not formal learning but all aspects of development around socialising and well-being. Keep reinforcing the importance of early years learning, including in infancy, as not all parents understand what is important in a child’s development in the early months and years of life. Messaging may need to be targeted to different parental needs. Needs to be reinforced to dads.
• Better support for mothers with mental health pre and post birth. Linking support for mothers so that they are able and then equipped to support their child’s early learning.
• Linking with PHSE curriculum at secondary schools emphasising early learning and parental roles and responsibilities. Promoting an understanding of what is required of parents to ensure children have a good start in life. Utilise young parents, not to promote parenthood but to emphasising the responsibilities and requirements of good parenting.
• Importance of flexibility in terms of how accessible early year’s provision was. • Discussion on the role of English as a common language for learning. Does this need to
be reinforced in the early years. How does this match with ensuring all are effectively accessing early learning, especially those entitled to free places.
Group also discussed post 16 destinations and IAG.
Consensus on a need for better IAG, more open and broader. Should be available at earlier ages young people don’t always connect subjects to careers, more information earlier would be better.
Item 1c
13
NEET - focus on careers education and how young people receive information, advice and guidance about their work and learning options after school Lessons and careers advice within schools • Lessons do not always feel applicable to ‘real life’, for example complex equations in
maths. A better balance of where the subject matter could lead with regards to careers would be useful.
• Having opportunities to engage with businesses would be welcome. The removal of the statutory duty for work experience has led to some schools not providing this anymore.
• Young people indicated that important factors in choosing a career/identifying appropriate employment opportunities included the learning and experience the job would offer, as well as the enjoyment that would come from that job. CTB members agreed that their priorities for choosing a particular job would be very different, and there was a clear gap between expectations and desires. More could be done to highlight the different benefits of jobs.
• ‘Set-piece’ careers advice days are less useful than ad hoc discussions with staff throughout the year as the events can feel stale, whereas the conversations provide an instant answer to a query.
• There should be a core offer for careers advice that all schools must provide, with schools choosing to go beyond that if they want.
• Careers advice within schools is not yet fully developed, and not always impartial. Apprenticeships, for example, are sometimes downplayed for those students who would benefit from that employment route, with the option to remain in school and study further highlighted more. This does not provide a balanced careers advice service, and can be weighted towards retaining pupils for the benefit of the school rather than the young person.
• People were clear that igen has a responsibility to provide careers advice and personal development services to young people, but were unclear as to whether igen provided feedback to young people on how effective their service was. Consider whether igen could go to schools and provide support to the existing careers advice.
Job opportunities in large organisations (LCC, NHS etc) • There are a huge range of career opportunities available but large organisations don’t
communicate directly to schools. The breadth of opportunities is not clear to young people.
• Council job adverts are very generic, and don’t appeal directly to any one audience. The link with school leavers could be used better, for example asking graduates or young people who have gone from school straight into a Council job to speak at careers advice sessions, or provide testimonials to current pupils. Positive information from people who have accessed the graduate programme or school leavers’ service would be helpful.
14
• The Council and the NHS are big, sprawling, intimidating organisations. The benefits of working for either are not clear from the outside, especially to young people who have no current experience of the workplace.
• Local businesses could partner with schools, to engage directly with young people about the benefits of working for that organisation.
• More could be done to highlight career options within large organisations, from highlighting the range of available jobs, to career progression opportunities etc.
Summary Careers advice within schools is not impartial, with the benefits of apprenticeships not always highlighted. Children’s Trust Board members to raise within their organisations how well career opportunities and the benefits of working for their organisation is communicated to young people. The Council to make better use of people who have successfully used the school leavers’ service to provide testimonials to pupils. CTB members to consider how to make their organisations less ‘intimidating’ to work for.
15
Teenage conception – discussion with youth councillors and Children’s Trust Board members Access to advice and support in school:
• The young people were from two secondary schools in Leeds where the level of support varied. In one school (Cockburn) there is a nurse available in school two days a week who runs a clinic where young people can access advice and support. There are some issues around how comfortable young people feel accessing this service though, as the clinic is run from an outbuilding where some young people feel they will be seen coming and going and so cannot access the service discreetly.
• The youth councillors also reported that some young people were reluctant to access advice services in a school setting, as they would not want people in school to know about their personal lives.
• Where sex and relationships education (SRE) is delivered by teachers through PSHE, this is not always as effective as it could be. The youth councillors reported that because there is such a focus on achievement in GCSEs, when they have PSHE sessions young people can tend to tune out because they know this is the one lesson where they won’t be getting assessed. The quality of teaching also makes a major difference to how effective SRE is. Young people described how the teacher who delivered their PSHE was not someone who they would feel comfortable asking for advice, but that they felt powerless to be able to respond to anyone in school about this and to be able to ask this subject to be delivered by a different member of staff. There was discussion about how teacher performance management is undertaken, but noted that young people have no formal role in this.
• Young people also commented that receiving SRE in Year 11 is too late as many of those in their peer group are already in sexual relationships.
• There were some instances of mixed messages around the age of consent, with young people saying that they had not been taught clearly about the age of consent in their SRE classes.
• There was a suggestion of having information printed in pupils’ school planners that signposted where to go to get support.
Access to contraception:
• Young people were aware of the C-card scheme, although they reported that this could be better promoted in schools.
• There was a suggestion that as part of making Leeds a Child Friendly City businesses that sell contraception could be encouraged to ensure that they created an environment where young people would not feel intimidated.
• It was reported that contraception services and STD services were in the process of being re-procured so that young people could access information about both issues at the same time.
It was noted that as well as receiving SRE and being able to access contraception, some of the most effective teaching for young people was about equipping them with the necessary resilience to feel empowered to make their own decisions. This would mean young people making informed choices and having the confidence to feel that they didn’t need to be swayed by others in their peer group. The “curriculum for life” campaign by the Youth Council fits well with the theme of teaching resilience.
16
INITIAL BUDGET PROPOSALS 2014/15 DIRECTORATE CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Service Context The Council has a statutory duty and responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of the 180,000 children and young people across Leeds. Working in partnership with families, communities, schools, businesses and Children’s Trust Board partners, there is a clear and agreed vision to improve outcomes for children and families and for Leeds to be a truly child friendly city. Our ambition is for Leeds to be the best city in the country for children to be born, grow-up, learn and have fun.
Children’s Services continues to face significant pressures with a 32% increase in the birth rate over the last decade and a changing demographic mix. This has increased demand across all the services that we provide and fund and will present significant challenges in respect of the supply of school places, the number of referrals and potentially increase the cost of high level services such as children in need, special educational needs and children in the care of the authority. Despite this increase in demand and in contrast to the national picture, Leeds has successfully, and safely, reduced the number of looked after children by 76, or 5.3% over the last year. Our budget strategy for 2014/15 is guided by our requirements to help ensure that children and young people are kept safe, receive good quality education and any additional support needs are identified and addressed. We are also guided by our priority to create better life chances for children and young people across the City. This increasing demand, in conjunction with the renewed national focus on child protection resulting from serious case reviews in other local authorities, together with the strengthening of the unannounced inspection framework, will all combine to create significant tensions across the system as the resources we at our disposal continues to reduce. The significance of our duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children continues to be recognised in the results of the budget consultation with children’s social care services and services for children with SEN/children with disabilities identified as the top two spending priorities.
The budget challenges facing the Council over the coming years necessitate a transformational re-design of services for children, young people and families. Over recent financial years, the prioritisation of resources to support vulnerable children and families has seen huge improvement in our 3 strategic obsessions. The medium-term budget strategy must be based on sustaining these improvements and continuing to support the strategy around protecting the service around child protection and safeguarding whilst at the same time continuing to invest in preventative and early intervention services. The budget proposals for 2014/15 are a stepping stone to a longer-term vision for children and family services which will be underpinned by the new Citizens@Leeds integrated approach across the whole Council. It will include;
a) A new geographically targeted service for young people at a level which is affordable from the perspective of the 2015/16 budget. The scope of the new service design to include: the targeted youth work service, attendance service and the Youth Offending Service. Consideration will also be given to including the personal advisers for children in care, Signpost and ASB. The service would also be responsible for the commissioning of information advice and guidance, youth work and other more targeted services.
b) An all age, locality based information, advice and guidance service to support the Citizen@Leeds Helping People into Work proposition. Children’s Services have been developing the concept of destinations teams which include schools,
Item 2a
17
colleges, IGEN and other learning providers to review and challenge the learning offer to young people. Complementing these teams with capacity from Employment and Skills, DWP, VCFS will enable us to plan and respond together at an individual and family level. The 3 community hub pilots offer an immediate opportunity to test out the approach.
c) A new child and family service based around ‘Family Zones building on the Best Start that focuses on improvement through the empowerment of families. The service re-design would include a fundamental re-design of our children’s centres. The re-design would include the possibility of transferring assets where the sustainability of services for children and families could be secured.
This vision and associated partnership refresh would support a rise in children deemed ‘ready for school (better speech, nutrition and social skills), reductions in ‘toxic’ adult behaviours harmful to the child’s development (eg, substance abuse and domestic violence), significant rises in take up of childcare, early years development and learning, improved parenting skills, significant support for child poverty and family debt issues, stronger social and community capital and also develop a new Learning Improvement Service which will secure our statutory responsibilities. The 2014/15 budget proposals are set in the context of the vision outlined above. In 2014/15 Children’s Services face pressures of £18m, including £2.4m of inflationary pressures, £5.3m of grant funding reductions and £4m in respect of the one off use of School balances to support the 2013/14 budget. The budget strategy recognises £1.2m of demand pressures in respect of home to school transport and direct payments as well as almost £4m of additional investment into alternatives to care, for example adoptions, special guardianship orders, semi-independent living, etc. These are key parts of our strategy to safely reduce the number, and consequential cost, of the children in care. The budget also includes almost £2m of investment to expand the key preventative services such as multi-systemic therapy and restorative practice where there is clear invest to save evidence. In terms of our looked after children population, the graph below clearly demonstrates how we have stabilised what was a rising trend in the numbers of children in care in Leeds and have managed to ‘turn the curve’ which, in budgetary terms, is already avoiding costs of £12m per year.
70
80
90
100
110Number of Looked After Childre 10,000)
88 CL
Leeds
18
Recognising the significant financial challenges, the 2014/15 budget proposals include savings and efficiency proposals of some £22.3m. As mentioned above, the programme of activity around safely reducing the total number of children in care whilst also changing the mix of placement provision has already delivered significant savings across recent financial years with savings of over £6m forecast to be achieved in 2013/14 across the externally provided placement budgets. This is contrary to the national position and comparisons with our statistical neighbour authorities where there have been increases the children in care population since March 2009 (an increase of 12% nationally). As mentioned, if Leeds had followed a similar trend then we be spending an additional £12m in 2013/14 on our looked after children. The 2014/15 budget continues to reflect this strategic obsession and ‘Budget Plus Strategy’ with proposed savings of £5.8m included from reducing the number of externally provided fostering and residential placements. In addition, the 2014/15 proposals include a £1.9m reduction in the funding for children’s centres which includes an additional £0.2m of income (above inflation) from increasing nursery fees by £3/day (8.3%) to £39/day, together with a saving of £1.7m from reviewing the patterns of provision and by continuing to review overheads, staffing ratios and working patterns across all children’s centres. In 2014/15 there will be £4.6m of savings achieved following from the previous decision by Executive Board around the home to school transport policies and provision including £1.25m savings from the provision of transport for children in care. The budget proposals also recognise the full-year impact from the Youth Offer with further savings of £0.4m in addition to savings from transferring the provision for the South Leeds hub, £0.16m of savings by reviewing the Council’s support for the Duke of Edinburgh Award, savings of £0.166 by reducing the subsidy for Herd Farm (£0.15m) and Lineham Farm (£0.07m) and savings of £0.09m (£1.8m full-year effect) from the proposal to review with stakeholders the governance of the Armley LAZER centre from September 2014. In addition, the proposals include potential savings of £0.7m from reviewing the provision and governance of services and also the range of contracts across the Directorate. In terms of Education Support Services, the proposals recognise a £0.75m reduction in the Education Services grant in 2014/15. In addition, Government has already announced a £200m national reduction in funding from April 2015 (a further cut of £2.5m for Leeds) on top of the impact of academy conversions. This will necessitate a fundamental restructure of our education support services in 2014/15 to take effect from April 2015.
Key Risks
The number of children and young people in the city is increasing which places greater demand for services for children and families. In particular, the wider financial and economic climate can have a significant impact and requests for service/contacts have already increased by 8.2% in 2013 with a rise of 14% in the referrals for social care services. The combination of rising demand and reducing resources will place significant pressures across the system. In addition to the risks around demand and resources it should be highlighted that the statutory duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people mean that Children’s Services are the only element of the Council that is the subject of an unannounced inspection regime. As a result of national concerns around child protection and safeguarding, Government has recently strengthened the inspection framework and increased its duration from two to four weeks.
19
The implementation of the range of proposals within the Children and Families Bill will also present challenges in 2014/15 and beyond, specifically around Special Educational Needs (SEN) where the Bill will extend the SEN system from birth to 25 alongside the requirement by September 2014 that all new statutory assessments will result in an integrated Education, Health and Care Plan with extended rights and protections for young people in further education and training, in addition to offering families personal budgets. The budget proposals for 2014/15 include £26m of savings/efficiencies by March 2014. The need to deliver this significant programme of in-year savings at the same time as developing the transformational re-design proposals for 2015/16 onwards will require significant leadership and programme management capacity, at a directorate and corporate level.
20
Children's Services
Pressures/Savings
2014/15 2014/15 Is this relevant to Equality & Diversity
£m FTEs Y/N
Budget Pressures:
InflationPay 1.35 0.00 NPrice 1.09 0.00 NIncome (0.37) 0.00 N
Full Year Effects of previous decisionsReview of provision at the City Learning Centres (0.45) 0.00 N
Expansion of the Multi-systemic Therapy Capacity 0.12 0.00 N
Demand/Demography
Home to school transport 1.07 0.00 N
Direct Payments 0.12 0.00 N
Other
Net changes in funding - including cessation of the adoption reform grant [£2.6m], Health Transformation [£1.5], School Balances [£4m], Education Services Grant [£0.75m], Youth Offending Service [£0.5m]
9.32 0.00 N
Investment into services for children in care and prevention and intervention - including Special Guardianship Orders, Adoptions, Family Group Conferencing, Semi-independent living and Leaving Care
3.92 15.10 Y
Multi-systemic therapy licencing, social work capacity, investment in Leeds Learning Network and Infobase, Workforce Development and Restorative Practice 2.03 18.43 N
Total Pressures 18.20 33.53
Savings Proposals:
Procurement (0.68) 0.00 N
Building a child friendly city - Looked After ChildrenReduced reliance on externally provided residential and fostering placements (5.77) 0.00 Y
Becoming an efficient and enterprising Council:Support Services - Organisational Development, Business Management Review and additional Vacancy Management savings (1.76) (49.71) Y
Income, charging and tradingNursery Fees - £3/day increase (8.33%) (0.22) 0.00 Y
Additional traded income/cost reductions (0.85) (4.17) Y
Public HealthPublic Health Funding (0.77) 0.00 N
Other efficiencies/savings proposalsReview of Children's Centre activity and sustainability (1.64) (12.07) Y
Youth Offer - implementation (net) (0.44) (24.50) Y
Families First Programme - Payment by Results (0.75) 0.00 N
Home to school transport - policy & provision savings (1.83) 0.00 Y
Review of in-house residential provision (0.90) (18.57) Y
Culture - review of music support services, music centre provision (0.20) (5.00) Y
Youth Offending Service - mitigate grant reductions and reduction in LCC contribution (0.67) (16.10) Y
Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services - funding review (0.50) 0.00 N
Education Services Grant - review of Education Welfare Services (0.50) (12.60) Y
Semi-independent living and Leaving Care - permanency planning (0.25) 0.00 N
Social Care Legal Costs - Public Law Outline (0.20) 0.00 N
Review of Contracts and Commisioned Services (0.73) 0.00 YEducation/Activity Centres - Armley LAZER centre, Herd Farm, Lineham Farm, South Leeds Hub (0.39) (4.85) Y
Review of Intensive Family Support Services and Family Placement Budgets (0.30) 0.00 Y
Duke of Edinburgh Awards - additional income/cost reductions (0.16) (3.00) Y
Review of the Gypsy, Roma Traveller Achievement Service (0.10) (3.33) Y
Voice & Influence and the Family Hub - review and reduce costs (0.25) (8.00) Y
Range of other savings & efficiencies (2.46) (25.66) Y
Total Savings (22.30) (187.56)
Overall net cost / (saving) (4.10) (154.03)
21
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
22
Leeds Children’s Trust Board
Date of meeting:
17th January 2014
Author: Tel No: Email:
Steve Walker [email protected]
Report title:
Developing our responses for vulnerable children under 5
Summary: This report considers support for vulnerable children aged under 5 that live in the most vulnerable families in Leeds. The report builds on the partnership’s Outcomes Based Accountability ‘Turn the Curve’ workshop in October. The report highlights the issues for these children and families and sets out the proposals developed from the workshop. Recommendations: The Board is recommended to:
• Consider the issues raised in the report • Agree priority areas for action
Item 2b
23
1. Purpose of report Improving outcomes for the most vulnerable babies and infants is an important shared priority for Leeds. Safely reducing the need for children and young people to be in care is one of the three ‘obsessions’ in the Children and Young People’s Plan and providing children with the ‘Best Start’ is one of the top four priorities in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Whilst improved social work, better joint work and effective early help have contributed to reducing the overall numbers of children and young people in care over the past two years, the proportion of children entering care at birth or before the age of 5 has increased significantly, and now these children form the majority of care entrants. The rate of infants entering care is now well above the national average and is particularly high in the most deprived areas of the city. The reasons for this change are complex, and factors include both better early help for older children and a rise in numbers of young children due to the rising birth rate in Leeds, but it also reflects a better understanding of the impact parental issues such as domestic violence, substance misuse, mental health and learning difficulties can have on very young children. There has been significant partnership activity across the city to address this increase in infants entering care, including the commissioning and development of new services such as Early Start and investment in Family Nurse Partnership. The Children’s Trust Board and Health and Well-being Board recognise the need for a coordinated multi-agency response to tackling the challenge that such a high rate of babies and infants entering care presents to the city. To support the development of these approaches the Children’s Trust Board and Health and Well-being Board held a joint ‘Turning the Curve’ Outcomes Based Accountability (OBA) workshop in October 2013. This paper presents an analysis of outputs from this conference and provides members of the Children Trust Board with proposals for the further development of coordinated multi-agency responses to reduce the number of babies and infants becoming looked after. 2. Background Needs analysis – rising demand and parental factors Improved joint working, early help and social work have helped ‘Turn the Curve’, and reduced the overall number of children and young people in care in Leeds over the past two years. However, despite this welcome improvement, the proportion of children that are in care in Leeds is still above national and
24
benchmark averages. A key component of this continuing high demand is the proportion of children that enter care aged under 5, as shown in the table below:
Starting care
2011/12 2012/13
Leeds National Leeds dif to national
Leeds National Leeds dif to national
Under 1 160 38.1% 21% 17.1 136 36.3% 21% 15.3 1 to 4 97 23.1% 20% 3.1 94 25.1% 20% 5.1 0-4 257 61.2% 41% 20.2 230 61.4% 41% 20.4 10 to 15 74 17.6% 30% -12.4 73 19.5% 29% -9.5 16 and over 18 4.3% 12% -7.7 13 3.5% 13% -9.5
(Source: DfE Statistical First Release) As the table shows, in Leeds six out of ten children starting care are under 5, compared to four out of ten nationally. The proportion entering care aged under 1 is even more markedly different from the national average, with nearly twice as many babies as the national average (36.3% compared to 21%). This pattern of entry to care is a marked change from previous years, as the table below shows. The proportion entering care aged under 5 changed from a third in 2007 to nearly two thirds by mid-2012. This change is particularly clear for those children entering care at birth:
Children Entering Care By Age & Year (%)
Year 0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15+ Grand Total
2007 14% 20% 17% 27% 22% 100% 2008 22% 21% 16% 21% 20% 100% 2009 26% 23% 17% 20% 14% 100% 2010 25% 27% 16% 21% 11% 100% 2011 33% 24% 18% 16% 10% 100%
2012 (Jan -June) 44% 21% 15% 14% 7% 100% (Source: Turn the Curve Strategy Group Data Analysis) As in nearly all other aspects of children’s lives, there are marked differences in outcomes in different parts of the city. As one would expect, children born in areas of high deprivation are much more likely to enter care. Analysis completed in 2012 suggested that in some clusters of the city such as Inner East and JESS, nearly one in fifty babies born were taken into care at birth, or in the first few
25
months of their lives. A map of entrants to care aged 0-4 is included in the data pack in Appendix 1. Further research has been undertaken in Leeds on the needs and circumstances of these young children and their families. Analyses of babies entering care were undertaken in both 2012 and 2013. The findings of these studies are important and are consistent with wider national and international research. The key findings are summarised below:
• Parental substance misuse, domestic violence, parental mental illness and parental learning disability were identified as key factors leading to care proceedings.
• There was a high level of co-occurrence of these parental factors; in 80% of cases where one of the factors was present, at least one other was also present.
• 55% of mothers had already been through one or more set of care proceedings, and 77% of known elder siblings were in care or adopted.
• 39% of the children in the cohort came from just two of the 25 clusters in the city – JESS and Inner East
• 87% of the cases assessed had one or more of these factors identified, with many have a combination of contributory parental factors.
• 44% families had issues with parental substance misuse, • 50% parental mental health problems, • 68% had domestic violence present or suspected to be present and • 33% of mothers had a confirmed diagnosis of learning difficulties, and a
further 20% suspected to have learning difficulties but with no formal diagnosis
The executive summary of this report is attached as Appendix 2. This research is supported by wider data and analysis in the city, which show the impact of these parental factors on demand for social work and safeguarding services. Key facts include:
• Domestic violence is the most common reason for referral to Social Care, in 2012 there were 3,628 referrals to Children’s Social Work Services relating to domestic violence, which represents 31% of the total number of referrals. In 2012 there were 142 referrals with substance misuse as the reason; there were 195 in 2013 (up to September).
• Parental factors are also identified by the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) at Reviews. Between September and mid November 2013, 81% of first reviews for looked after children identified one or more of; parental substance/alcohol misuse, parental mental health, domestic violence or parental learning disability as contributing factors to the child coming into care. Parental substance misuse was identified in 57% of cases, parental mental health in 31%, domestic violence in 46% and parental learning
26
disability in 11%. Over half of reviews identified a combination of parental factors.
• There were 2,154 new referrals for unborn children or those aged under 1 in 2011/12 and 3,581 for children aged one to four. The number of referrals for under 1s decreased by 28% to 1,556 in 2012/13 and by 18% to 2,946 for one to fours.
• In 2011/12 47% of referrals for under 1s and 38% for 1-4s were from the police. The next most frequent source of referrals was health, with 21% of the total.
• Over a third of referrals for the 0-4 age group were for domestic violence, with the proportion higher for under 1s than for 1-4s. The reasons making up the majority of other referrals were; parenting support, suspected neglect and suspected physical abuse.
• In 2011/12 66% (62% in 2012/13) of referrals for 0-4s went on to initial assessments. This is in-line with the conversion of referrals to initial assessments for all age groups.
The rationale for change The data above make clear the continuing high levels of need for these children and families. A new approach is needed to better meet the particular needs of these very young children and their families. Better services and support should help improve outcomes both in the short term and the long term, and also provide significant long term savings to the city and public services. Due to their age, younger children are particularly at risk as they are so much more dependent and hence more vulnerable to parental dysfunction. This poses not just an immediate risk to their wellbeing, but a longer term risk as research suggests that the early years are crucial to development, attachment and long term life chances.
Early recognition is necessary if long-term damage is to be avoided, because the effects of emotional abuse and neglect appear to be cumulative and pervasive. Both these types of child abuse have serious adverse long-term consequences across all aspects of development, including children’s social and emotional wellbeing, cognitive development, physical health, mental health and behaviour. Failure to recognize and address these forms of maltreatment may result in lifelong damage to the child and high costs to society through burdens on health and other services. (Ward et al, DfE, 2012.)
27
Proactive intervention in the early years is in children’s interests, but should also be more cost effective, as research shows that interventions early in the life course are more likely to succeed and will have a positive lifelong impact. This has been illustrated by the widely used graph below.
(Source: Heckman, 2008) Research has repeatedly shown that early family support programmes can make significant savings. Recent reports such as those by Graham Allen MP on Early Intervention or the report of the Chief Medical Officer cite a wide range of examples including:
• £4 trillion: the approximate cost of a range of preventable health and social outcomes faced by children and young people over a 20 year period, according to research by Action for Children and the New Economics Foundation.
• The annual short term costs of emotional, conduct and hyperkinetic disorders among children aged 5-15 to be £1.58 billion and the long term costs £2.35billion
• Evaluation by the RAND Corporation of the Nurse Family Partnership (a programme targeted to support ‘at-risk’ families by supporting parental behaviour to foster emotional attunement and confident, nonviolent parenting) estimated that the programme provided savings for high-risk families by the time children were aged 15. These savings (over five times greater than the cost of the programme) came in the form of reduced welfare and criminal justice expenditures and higher tax revenues, and improved physical and mental health
• Research from the London School of Economics found that by the age of 28 the
cumulative costs of public services were 10 times higher for individuals with conduct disorder compared with those with no problems.
28
The past six months have seen some intensive partnership work to begin to develop a better, joined up response to the needs of young children in these most vulnerable families. Already some new services and approaches are being trialled. These include the expansion of Family Nurse Partnership Service, the Child Minder pilot and the Baby Steps project. However, the Children Trust Board and the Health and Well-Being Board recognise that these initiatives will not be enough to ‘Turn the Curve’ of the number of babies and infants becoming looked after. To do this there will need to be a coordinated approach across a range of services for children and adults. The joint OBA workshop in late October was designed to start the process of identifying and developing a coordinated response. Outputs from the October Turning the Curve Event and Proposals for further development The event provided a wide range of suggestions. Analyses of these have identified a number of common themes and proposals for the development of a coordinated response to the challenge presented to the city by the high numbers of babies and infants becoming looked after.
• Theme: Improve leadership and governance:
o Proposals: a senior strategic group, linked to the Children’s Trust Board and Health and Wellbeing Board, is established to provide direction and drive service redesign and resources; and secondly the current 0-4 Multi-Agency Looked After Partnership (MALAP) is developed as the operational group.
• Theme: Refocus resources:
o Proposals: engage all significant partners in redirecting
resources to the small number of Clusters with the highest level of need and demand for care. This could be through establishing specialist multi-agency teams to work with families where domestic violence and/or issues of parental, substance misuse, mental health or learning disability mean that there is a high risk that very young children could become looked after or establishing arrangements to ensure that existing resources are targeted to these families.
29
• Theme: Prioritise parents.
o Proposals: review existing arrangements for the provision of services to adults affected by domestic violence, parental, substance misuse, mental health or learning disability to ensure that services such as addiction support and mental health services prioritise parents where the child is at risk or on ‘the edge of care’.
• Theme: Strengthen Joint Working:
o Conclude development of renewed Think Family Protocol, and support this with extensive communication and engagement work
o Use re-commissioning of Substance Misuse services as opportunity to ensure that renewed service models and processes are properly linked to children’s services and better promote ‘Team Around the Family’ working for these parents and children
• Theme: Developing new services
o Proposal - Improve access to psychological therapies: propose new joint commissioning between CCG and Early Start to improve access to counselling and/or CBT for parents with poor mental health
o Proposal - Neighbourhood support for parents with learning disabilities: develop and commission new service model of neighbourhood community support for parents with learning disabilities, supported through Children’s Centres. Initial proposal is to redirect part of existing Homestart service towards these parents as it fits this model.
o Proposal - Improve ‘post removal support’: develop, pilot and roll out citywide model of post removal support service for parents whose children have entered care.
o Develop a Pre-Birth Intensive Support Service: complete development of a pilot multi-agency approach to intensive intervention and support for vulnerable parents at an early stage of pregnancy, based on best practice in Durham and Gloucester.
o Extend Domestic Violence programmes– consideration of expansion of perpetrator programmes.
30
• Theme – Improving access to support and advice for front line teams:
o Proposal - Improve communication and training: new approaches and redesigned services will need to be known and supported by front line managers and staff if they are to succeed, therefore there is a need to support staff and services through change.
o Proposal - Improve specialist advice: In addition to communication and training, front line staff need access to better specialist advice for working with these families, e.g. for those with poor mental health. It is proposed that a team of specialists could be linked to the Front Door service to provide this advice.
3. Implications for governance, policy, resources, CYPP outcomes
The main implications for governance are the recommendation to create a new Board, linked to the Health and Wellbeing Board, to provide a lead on work with these most vulnerable families, and the strategic commissioning of new services for vulnerable children under 5.
4. Details of any consultation undertaken with stakeholders (including
children & young people) The main engagement of stakeholders was through the well-attended and evaluated OBA workshop in October. 5. Relationship to other partnership activity This paper is linked to the Commissioning Priorities report.
6. What can Children’s Trust Board do to help? The Board is recommended to:
• Consider the issues raised in the report • Agree priority areas for action
Background documents: Appendix 1 – OBA Data Pack Appendix 2 – Executive Summary of 2013 LAC Research Paper
31
0-5s entering care OBA event: data summary
The number of children entering care: the curve to turn
Source: 2010 – 2012 DfE statistical first releases, 2013 local data
The number of children aged under 1 taken into care in Leeds increased significantly in the 2011/12 financial year. Although the number has fallen back in 2013, the number is still high. The proportion of those entering care that are under 1 is significantly higher than national (over a third of those entering care are aged under 1 in Leeds, compared to a quarter nationally). The proportion of children entering care that are aged 1-4 is also higher in Leeds than nationally.
Under 5s make up a greater proportion of the care cohort in Leeds than nationally and in statistical neighbour authorities. At the end of March 2013, 31% of children looked after in Leeds were aged under 5, compared to 24% nationally. The proportion of the care cohort that are under 5 has increased from 25% in 2010. This increase has coincided with the increase in the number of under 5s entering care.
The percentage of children entering care: comparative data
2010 2011 2012 2013
Aged under 1 110 110 165 136
Aged 1-4 115 100 95 94
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
nu
mb
er
en
teri
ng
care
2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013
Aged under 1 Aged 1-4
England 19 19 21 21 20 21 20 20
Leeds 25 27 38 36 25 25 23 25
Statistical neighbour average 25 22 25 24 25 23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% o
f th
ose
en
teri
ng
care
32
Source: 2010 – 2012 DfE statistical first releases, 2013 local data for Leeds
Demographic change
The increase in numbers of under 5s taken into care in recent years is in the context of a rising population in this age group. The birth rate in Leeds has risen significantly in recent years, with the number of births increasing by 38% from 7562 in 2001 to 10350 in 2012. This will impact on the number of under 5s coming into care, particularly as the areas with the highest increase in births tend to be where demand for social care services is higher. However, the birth rate began to rise before the rise in under 5s entering care, therefore the increase in birth rate, whilst contributing to this issue is not the only causal factor.
Local research
In 2012 and 2013, local research was undertaken to investigate the parental factors and circumstances leading to under 1s coming into care. The 2013 study looked at a sample of 38 cases of children who came into care between January and March 2013. This research highlighted a number of issues for parents of these children:
Alcohol and substance misuse Domestic violence Parental mental health Parental learning difficulties Previous experience of care A high proportion of mothers had previously had children removed.
Referrals
There were 2,154 new referrals for unborn children or those aged under 1 in 2011/12 and 3,581 for children aged one to four. The number of referrals for under 1s decreased by 28% to 1,556 in 2012/13 and by 18% to 2,946 for one to fours.
In 2011/12 47% of referrals and for under 1s and 38% for 1-4s were from the police, these proportions fell in 2012/13.
The proportion of referrals for 0-4s was 12% coming from hospitals and other health; and 9% from primary and community health in 2012/13/.
Over a third of referrals for the 0-4 age group were for domestic violence, with the proportion higher for under 1s than for 1-4s. The other referral reasons making up the majority of other referrals were; parenting support, suspected neglect and suspected physical abuse.
In 2011/12 66% (62% in 2012/13) of referrals for 0-4s went on to initial assessments. This is in-line with the conversion of referrals to initial assessments for all age groups.
Geographical variation
The map overleaf shows that there are areas of the city where there are clusters of young children taken into care:
Harehills Richmond Hill
33
Beeston Holbeck Burley
34
35
Appendix 2: 2013 Looked After Children Research Report
Looked After Children – Research report 2013
Executive Summary
In recent years, the Children’s Social Work Service (CSWS) in Leeds has identified significant changes to the demographics of the looked after population, with under-fives over-represented, and a particularly high proportion of babies under the age of one becoming looked after. In 2012, a research study was carried out to explore further the parental factors and circumstances which led to a sample of babies coming into care. The current study is a replication and further development of this work, looking in more detail at some of the trends identified in the 2012 study, i.e. the high number of parents who had already had children removed from their care.
The methodology for the 2013 study mirrored that of the 2012 study, with the sample of 38 cases initially identified from the cohort of children who became looked after between the months of January and March 2013. Basic details about the cases were obtained from the Electronic Social Care Record (ESCR) and this information was used to identify each child’s social worker. Telephone interviews were then carried out with social workers, following a standard set of questions which included the parental risk factors present, child protection concerns, the support parents are currently receiving, and the anticipated permanency plan for each child.
Geographical analysis found that 39% of the children in the cohort came from just two of the 25 clusters in the city; eight from Inner East and seven from JESS (south Leeds). Twenty one of the families in the sample had already had children removed through previous care proceedings; the circumstances of these families were explored in greater detail.
Demographics
The majority of parents were of White British ethnicity, with a wide range of ages. As in the 2012 study, it was more common for fathers to be older than mothers than the converse, with six fathers who were older than the mothers by more than ten years. More analysis would be needed in each of these cases to establish whether this age gap is indicative of any particular vulnerability on the part of the younger mother.
Family breakdown is a key aspect of the families in this cohort; birth parents are still together in only 21% of the families. Due to the nature of the transient and complex relationships between parents in this cohort, and the fact that nine of the fathers are unknown, it was difficult to obtain detailed information on the partners of birth parents in the 2013 cohort, and therefore difficult to establish the profile of any additional risk factors represented by other adults.
Parental factors
Four parental factors were considered in detail for this cohort, as in the 2012 study; substance misuse, mental health problems, domestic violence and learning difficulties. It should be noted, in relation to all of these factors, that the imbalance between numbers of
36
known mothers and known fathers in the sample may present an unrepresentative picture when comparing levels of each factor amongst the parents in the cohort.
For the cohort as a whole, in more than 80% of cases where one of these parental factors was present within a family, there was at least one other factor as well. Co-occurrence of other factors was particularly noticeable in relation to domestic violence; in 95% of families where domestic violence was present, at least one of the other factors also featured.
Substance misuse was present in seventeen of the families (45%). Rates of parental substance misuse were broadly similar for those parents who had had more than one child removed. There was a relatively low rate of co-occurrence between substance misuse and learning difficulty, but the highest rate of co-occurrence in the study, particularly for those who have had more than one child removed, was where substance use, mental health problems and domestic violence were all present.
Mental health was the factor which occurred most frequently in families in the 2013 cohort, with 19 families affected. Mental health problems had a high rate of co-occurrence with substance misuse, and as noted above the highest frequency was of mental health problems with both substance misuse and domestic violence. These patterns were mirrored in the sub-set of families who have already had a child removed.
Child protection concerns
As found in the 2012 study, child protection concerns cited as leading to the removal of the child differed between mothers and fathers. For mothers, the three most frequent concerns were risk of physical abuse, followed by risk of neglect and vulnerability/ lack of understanding of risk/ risk of predatory men. For fathers, the three most frequent concerns were the risk of physical abuse, domestic violence and substance misuse.
LAC history/ CSWS involvement of parents
This was not explored in the 2012 study, but the results of the 2013 cohort are striking. 37% of the mothers in the sample experienced some kind of formal looked after status during their childhood and the same was true of 21% of known fathers. This proportion increased to 43% amongst those mothers who have had children removed previously.
Parents who have already had children removed
In total, the 38 mothers and 28 known fathers in the cohort have 114 children, and one of the mothers is currently pregnant again. These large numbers echo the findings of the 2012 study; indeed, three of the mothers in the 2012 cohort also appear in the 2013 cohort, and a further four of the 2012 mothers are currently pregnant again. It is reasonable to assume that the figure of 114 children in total is a conservative figure, given that nine of the fathers of children in the 2013 cohort are unknown.
Outside of the 38 children in the study, there is information on ages and current living arrangements for 62 of the older children of the 2013 parents. 77% of those for whom information about their current whereabouts is available are either looked after currently, or have been adopted.
37
Twenty one of the mothers in the 2013 cohort (55%) have been through more than one set of care proceedings, and these mothers account for over half of the following child protection concerns across the whole cohort:
• Failure to protect • Substance misuse • Chaotic lifestyle/ homelessness/ ASB • Vulnerability/ lack of understanding of risk/ risk of predatory men • Mental health problems • Schedule 1 offenders in family/ support network
73% of the 38 children in this cohort born to parents who have already had children removed are expected to be placed for adoption, compared to 58% of the general cohort.
Analysis of mothers’ ages indicated that the majority of mothers who have had children removed through previous care proceedings gave birth to their first child before the age of twenty one. This indicates that, in order to prevent a cycle of repeated removals, young mothers should be considered a priority for any support or intervention packages.
Family Group Conferences (FGC) and consideration of kinship care
71% of families in the 2013 cohort did not have an FGC, with the most commonly cited reason being that there were no appropriate family members to consider. From the conversations with social workers, it appears that some social workers had ruled out the possibility of holding an FGC on the basis of there not being any likely options for kinship care placements within the extended family; it is therefore suggested that some further work is done to clarify the role of FGC versus the role of kinship carer considerations, particularly for those families who have already had children removed.
In 74% of the cases, viability assessments were carried out on kinship carers. For the general cohort, 47% of these assessments were negative, and this increased to 61% for the sub-set of parents who have already had a child removed. Further research would be needed in order to explore the reasons for these high failure rates.
Social worker perceptions
In addition to the detailed information about each case, social workers were asked for their opinions on two more general questions; whether the timeliness of referrals had increased in the twelve months since the 2012 study, and whether they felt there were any gaps in services or interventions which could help support families on their caseload (not limited to families with children under the age of one).
Social workers generally noted some improvements in the timeliness of referrals, particularly from midwifery, but considered the overall picture as variable rather than consistent. There was a consensus, however, that in a high proportion of cases where referrals were received late, this was more likely to be the result of late presentations or denials on behalf of the mothers rather than any agency practice.
Many social workers noted the need for families to be supported following the removal of a child, both emotionally to cope with the loss and practically in order to make the necessary
38
changes recommended through assessments and court reports. There was a feeling that this aspect of support was the key to breaking the cycle of repeat referrals; to be clear with families what the local authority expects from them in being able to care for any future children, and the likely consequences of not meeting those expectations, alongside the necessary challenge and support to help families make those changes. Work is already underway to develop such services, and the 2013 study should offer further evidence about the need for this, given the large numbers of children born to parents in this cohort and the high proportion of those who are looked after.
Recommendations
The results of the current study suggest a number of avenues for further research and strategic development:
• There is a need for the development of support services for those families who have had children removed from their care, in order to prevent repeat removals. The social workers interviewed identified three distinct strands to this support which are worth further investigation: preventing further pregnancies, e.g. through contraceptive advice and emotional support for their loss, potentially using tools such as FGC to facilitate this; offering support to parents to implement the recommendations for change made through court proceedings; and giving parents clear and specific advice about the likely consequences in relation to the removal of subsequent children if changes are not made
• Services which work with parents need to co-ordinate their support to ensure that all of the issues are addressed. The high level of co-occurrence of parental factors for the cohort suggests that services which focus on parental substance misuse, mental health problems, domestic violence or learning difficulties in isolation are not likely to be as effective as those services which take a holistic approach
• The high proportion of care-experienced parents in the cohort, particularly amongst those who have gone through repeat removals, suggests that more could be done with looked after children and young people, in our capacity as corporate carers, to educate them about the reality of becoming a parent, as well as developing their basic parenting skills and their understanding of what adequate parenting consists of
• Given that so many of the mothers who have experienced repeat removals had their first child at a young age, this suggests that further targeted work could be done to help young and expectant teenage parents to develop their parenting skills and their understanding of what adequate parenting consists of
• Further guidance or training may be required for social workers on the role and purpose of Family Group Conferences; in particular, about expectations around the use of FGCs with families who have already had children removed, and the opportunities that FGC may provide in either preventing further pregnancies or helping families to implement the changes which may allow children to remain with their parents in the future.
• The proportion of positive viability assessments carried out on family members was very low for the 2013 cohort. More work could be done to understand the reasons why family members are failing these assessments, and explore options, where appropriate, to offer them support to develop their capacity to care for children in kinship arrangements
39
• The information and evidence obtained through this research needs to be used in the appropriate forums to influence how services are commissioned to work with parents who experience needs around their substance misuse, mental health issues, domestic violence and learning difficulties. Such services should be encouraged to take a ‘whole family’ approach and to consider the impact of those parental needs on children within the family when they work with parents.
40
1
Leeds Children’s Trust Board Date of meeting:
17th January 2014
Author: Tel No: Email:
Paul Bollom 0113 2243952 [email protected]
Report title:
Joint Commissioning Priorities 2014/16
Summary: Six shared priorities have been identified by partners as integral to the development of a Children and Families Integrated Commissioning Programme. This paper provides an outline of these priorities and a proposed governance approach, taking into account key partnership Boards in the city. Recommendations: The Children’s Trust Board are invited to:
1. Approve the six priorities identified. 2. Review the actions noted against the six priorities and the proposed next
steps. 3. Approve the governance approach identified for progressing the priorities.
Item 2c
41
2
1. Purpose of report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek agreement to six priority areas to
work together to maximise ‘Leeds assets’ and the value of every ‘Leeds Pound’ spent on improving children and families’ services and outcomes. These areas have been identified as shared priorities through a workshop of current commissioners from across the council and CCG , alongside representation from the third sector. They are identified as critical in the ambitions set out in both the Leeds Children and Young Peoples Plan and the Leeds Health and Wellbeing Strategy, whilst accounting for national policy, legislation and budget planning.
2. Background information 2.1 Existing joint commissioning priorities and their governance have been
reviewed. This has been in light of the following developments:- • The establishment of the Leeds Health and Wellbeing Board
arrangements, the publication of Leeds Health and Wellbeing Strategy and the associated commissioning partnership arrangements; the Integrated Commissioning Executive (ICE)
• The new role of the local authority through the delivery and commissioning of Public Health functions in the city
• The development of the Clinical Commissioning Groups landscape in Leeds
• The development of NHS England commissioning role • Leeds’ successful application for Pioneer status as a lead local
authority in the integration of health and social care systems. 2.2 A workshop including commissioners from LCC (Children’s Services,
Neighbourhoods and Housing, Public Health, and Adult Social Care); CCGs (Lead commissioner Children & Families services, LSE CCG Clinical Chief Officer, LSE CCG Clinical Lead GP for Children); and representatives from Third Sector Leeds identified the six priority areas for joint commissioning.
3. Main issues 3.1 The identified priority areas take account of the following policies and
publications:- 3.1.1 The Chief Medical Officers Report 2012: Our Children Deserve Better:
Prevention Pays recommends development, dissemination and implementation of the evidence base for early intervention, a refresh of the Health Child Programme with a focus on early years, a complimentary approach between health and education services to narrow gaps in education and health outcomes, identification of how family support
42
3
impacts on health outcomes and ensuring the workforce is trained to deliver care and support appropriate to children.
3.1.2 The NHS Mandate 2014-15 (Department of Health) relevant focus on
better prevention of early preventable mortality including in children and young people, improving quality of life for all people (including children) with long-term health conditions, improved recovery from ill health or injury, promoting equality of consideration of physical and emotional health and promoting a positive experience of care.
3.1.3 Our Best Council Plan (2013-17), particularly in supporting improved
outcomes and quality of life for the most vulnerable in a context of achieving the savings and efficiencies required in front line services. In supporting building a Child Friendly City and we need to ensure we have the right partnership of services to deliver on our three partnership obsession outcomes (looked after children, reducing NEETs and raising attendance). It also recognises the importance of partnership in raising education attainment and reduce particularly early gaps in achievement. Finally it supports the councils plan to be an efficient and enterprising council through promoting an enterprising culture in key areas and improving our commissioning and procurement.
3.1.4 Support the delivery of the Leeds Children and Young People’s Plan
(2011-15, refreshed 2013) in the broader 13 priorities which include the three obsessions noted above.
3.1.5 The need to deliver against the Leeds Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy
(2013-15). This is including supporting people to have healthy lifestyles (priority 1) ensuring everyone in Leeds has the best start in life (priority 2), ensure people with lives safely in their own homes and cope better with their conditions (priority 4 and 6), improve people’s mental health and wellbeing (priority 7) ensure people have a voice and influence in decision making and have control over with health and social care services (priority 10 and 11) and increasing the number of people achieving their potential through education and lifelong learning (priority 14) that people have increased control over their own health conditions.
3.2 Six Joint Commissioning Priorities 3.2.1 The purpose of identifying and progressing the priority areas is to work
together to maximise ‘Leeds assets’ and the value of every ‘Leeds Pound’ spent on improving children and families’ services and outcomes..
Priority areas for joint commissioning are:
43
4
• Commissioning to ensure everyone will have the best start in life (HWB Strategy Priority 2)
• Commissioning integrated and personalised services for children with complex needs (SEN) (Children & Family Bill legislation/ NHS Mandate)
• Commissioning a comprehensive emotional and mental health service for children and young people.
• Pathways for children who enter and leave care • Positive transition services for young people to adulthood across
education, skills and health. • A shared commissioning approach to family support .
3.3 Priority 1 - Best Start 3.3.1 We know that intervention in the early years of a child’s life provides the
best chance of success and best return on investment by public spend. Recent policy and strategy indicates a need for a refreshed conception of Best Start provision, this includes the ‘All Parliamentary Review of Sure Start Provision’ (September 2013), the recent Wave Trust recommendations identified in “Conception to 2 years: The Age of Opportunity”, the Leeds response to the Chief Medical Officers (CMO) Report “Our Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays” (October 2013),
3.3.2 The context for a best start for every child is that we know that children in
Leeds show a significant gap in early measures of health outcome and educational achievement depending on their socio-economic circumstances – the gap in a number of indicators for Leeds indicates it is the largest in the UK. Corresponding with this is that children are more likely to become looked after in Leeds in their early years than other cities.
3.4 Priority 2 - Commissioning integrated and personalised services for
children with complex needs (SEN) 3.4.1 The integration of health and social care functions for children with
complex needs into a cohesive offer for every child from birth was identified in Leeds’ successful Pioneer bid. This is set against parent’s challenge that the current pattern of services in Leeds across health and social care is complex, hard to navigate and frequently does not support parents understanding of the assessment and care pathway. These local commitments are intrinsically linked to implementation of the Children and Families Bill, likely to be enacted in 2014, which heralds significant changes in the assessment and planning of services for children and families with additional needs.
3.4.2 Specific areas requiring an integrated commissioning approach are:
44
5
• Delivery of a single assessment and enabling the single Educational Health and Social Care Plan for all children aged 0-25 with complex needs (replacing the Statement of Special Educational Needs),
• Ensuring a clear and comprehensive local offer of provision for disabled children
• Developing a shared personalisation, personal budget and direct payment approach with families.
3.5 Priority 3 - Commissioning a comprehensive emotional and mental
health service for children and young people 3.5.1 The consideration of mental and emotional health is integral to securing
overall positive outcomes for children. This is reiterated in both local data (the 2012 Growing Up in Leeds survey) as well as recent national reports (the CMO’s report, Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition Report ‘Overlooked and Forgotten, November 2013). This priority builds on the needs analysis and associated commissioning framework agreed by Children’s Trust Board in June 2013. This identified five areas for shared development: • Early prevention and Intervention • Improving targeted services for vulnerable groups • Specialist CAMHS • Whole System
3.6 Priority 4 - Pathways for Children who enter and leave care 3.6.1 The Leeds Turning the Curve strategy for the number of children in care to
be appropriately reduced has effectively reduced the population of children who are looked after in the city against national trends. However overall rates of care entry remain high compared to national comparators and include a higher proportion of children aged 0-5.
3.6.2 Increased use of kinship care, local foster parents and an active policy to
support the appropriate return of children and young people from geographically distant residential provision means a greater proportion of Leeds children looked after live within their home city. This positive development has a broader impact on local services including primary care, emotional health and wellbeing services and public health funded provision. Increased effectiveness of Special Guardianship Orders, the Leeds adoption offer and support for children to return to birth or extended families has increased children’s exits from care to local settings. However a substantial number of children leave care in Leeds as young people with poor quality transition, a lack of a positive destination of employment, education or training and poor preparedness to use and handover to adult services.
45
6
3.6.3 Commissioning requirements are to ensure there are strong preventative services informed by local evidence of risk factors in Leeds, commissioned services have the capacity and knowledge to effectively support children and families in Leeds and that services are aligned to support children’s exits from care either to their families or to independence.
3.7 Priority 5 - Positive transition services for young people to adulthood
across education, skills and health. 3.7.1 Enduring health and wellbeing is supported most effectively by positive
destinations for young people into education, training and employment. This needs to be achieved for all young people regardless of health need or vulnerability. Broader changes in the patterns of health and social care provision for adults (to greater use of community provision and reduced inpatient and acute provision) means that young people’s expectations of skills required to support their own health should be maximised.
3.8 Priority 6 - A shared commissioning approach to family support 3.8.1 Leeds has developed a significant and diverse pattern of family support
investment:-
• A successful Families First (national Troubled Families funding) programme has demonstrated the efficacy in raising attainment and aspiration whilst challenging family behaviours including criminality, worklessness, poor attendance and educational exclusion.
• A nationally and internationally recognised Multi-System Therapy (MST) provision
• Family support workers Early Start settings • Family Intensive Support services based on the Family Intervention
Programme evidence base. • A Family Nurse Partnership service offering intensive support to young
and vulnerable mothers. • A significant workforce employed within the multi-professional teams
in clusters funded principally from schools budgets. 3.8.2 There is a need to coordinate better alignment and cohesion between
these services ensuring best value is achieved for the investment (best value for the ‘Leeds pound’)
3.9 Next Steps 3.9.1 Discussion and sign off at each of the key partnership boards (CTB,
HWBB, and ICE).
46
7
3.9.2 Further refinement of the commissioning scope of each area • Understand current investment profile • Identify commissioners needing to be involved • An appraisal of the current quality of a needs led and outcome based
commissioning approach • An assessment of the merits of a programme budgeting approach • An assessment of current knowledge; “what do we know now, what
are children, young people and families are telling us and where are the gaps”
• How can we commission differently using a co-production approach.
3.9.3 The above information will be used to create an overall integrated commissioning programme of work for children and families jointly owned by CTB and ICE.
4. Implications for governance, policy, resources, CYPP outcomes 4.1 CTB Commissioning & Finance sub group was conceived prior to the
inception of local HWBs and before the substantive health structural reforms leading to the formation of ICE and the movement of PH provision to the local authority. It is in the process of being reviewed as part of the wider review of the Children’s Trust. Members recognised that there was a need for the sub group to adapt to the current commissioning landscape and to have a greater strategic focus with its link to the Health & Wellbeing Board and Integrated Commissioning Executive strengthened.
4.2 The current review of the functioning of the Leeds Transformation Board is
developing a “Programme Office” approach for joint priorities. It is recommended that programme arrangements agreed for the above priorities are recognised and supported by this review and used by the Board to support accelerated development.
4.3 The membership of the group needs to be amended to reflect the
stakeholders required to progress the six priorities. The membership is therefore proposed to consist (at least) of:-
• Lead commissioner for CCGs (with support from Clinical Lead GP as
required) • Lead commissioner for LCC Adult Social Care • Lead commissioner for LCC Neighbourhoods and Housing • Lead commissioner for Public Health • Chief Officer Partnership Development and Business Support (chair),
LCC Children’s Services. • Third Sector Leeds representative • Head of Service Commissioning and Market Management, LCC
Children’s Services
47
8
• Head of Service Strategic Investment, Contracting and Procrement • Skills for Life Lead • The importance of the schools sector as direct and indirect
commissioners of services suitable school leadership will be invited to join the group.
• Head of Service Finance, LCC Children’s Services • Leeds South and East CCG Finance Representative • NHS England commissioning representative – as appropriate
4.4 Suitable arrangements will also be brokered with Community Safety, the
Police Commissioner and Area Management to support programmes as required.
4.5 It is proposed therefore that in future the Commissioning and Finance
Subgroup have accountability to both CTB and ICE. It is proposed this is practically implemented by continuing the current arrangement whereby the group chair attends both meetings. It is proposed that the membership is refreshed in light of the above to consider school, CCG and Public Health perspectives appropriately. It is proposed that the name of the Group is revised to reflect this change pending agreement from the group. Revised terms of reference will be brought forward on this basis.
5. Details of any consultation undertaken with stakeholders (including
children & young people) 5.1 The priorities have been identified through consultation with stakeholders
listed above. 6. Relationship to other partnership activity 6.1 In addition to the interlining of partnership activity described above there is
a need for the group to consider how it supports local cluster partnerships in considering how their commissioning activity may be better aligned.
7. What can Children’s Trust Board do to help 7.1 Children’s Trust Board are invited to support the recommended strands for
joint commissioning and recommend to the Health and Wellbeing Board adoption of these priorities for development in common. The Board is also invited to support and approve the governance changes indicated above. The Board are invited to request a report indicating commissioning priorities, confirmed updated membership and revised terms of reference based on completion of the “next steps” indicated above.
48
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 1
Contents1. Leeds2. Cluster - obsessions Cluster level data for obsessions showing direction of travel3. Cluster - all indicators4. Cluster definitions5. Indicator definitions
Version number:Date produced:Created by:Contact details:Status:Filepath:Protective marking:
V1
Not protectively markedU:\CHILDRENS PERFORMANCE SERVICES\Products\Dashboards\CYPP
City level data for all indicators
Cluster level data for all indicators where this is availableClusters by area and acronym explanationsData source and calculation method
[email protected] Lawrence23 December 2013
Children and Young People's Plan cluster performance - November 2013
This document is intended to support practitioners who are working in clusters on the Children and Young People's Plan (CYPP) priorities, to monitor impact. It reports month by month performance at cluster level for the indicators in the CYPP.
• 16-18 year olds starting apprenticeships: data-set owned by the National Apprenticeship Service and unavailable below city level
New versions of this spreadsheet are issued monthly. Data in this edition of the dashboard relates to the end of November 2013.
• Children and young people's influence in school and the community: this may be available in due course, depending on the response rate within clusters being high enough to be statistically valid
Not all indicators can be reported at cluster level. This currently applies to the following indicators:
Data is subject to change, and figures may differ to those formally reported, based on year end reporting mechanisms. Refer to the indicator definitions worksheet for an explanation of the data source and how performance is calculated at a cluster level.
Print dashboard
49
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 1
Children and Young People's Plan Key Indicator Dashboard - City level: November 2013
Measure National Stat neighbour
Result for same period
last year
ResultAug 2013
ResultSep 2013
ResultOct 2013
ResultNov 2013 RAG DOT Data last
updated
Timespan covered by
month result
1. Number of children looked after 59/10,000 (2011/12 FY)
74/10,000 (2011/12 FY)
1414(88.7/10,000)
1372(85.0/10,000)
1357(84.0/10,000)
1352(83.7/10,000) unavailable R 30/11/13 Snapshot Notes
2. Number of children subject to Child Protection Plans
37.9/10,000 (2012/13 FY)
39.5/10,000 (2012/13 FY)
933(58.5/10,000)
868(53.7/10,000)
816(50.5/10,000)
795(49.2/10,000) unavailable R 30/11/13 Snapshot
3a. Primary attendance 95.2%(HT1-4 2013 AY)
95.2%(HT1-4 2013 AY)
95.8%(HT1-4 2012 AY)
A ▼ HT1-4 AY to date
3b. Secondary attendance 94.2%(HT1-4 2013 AY)
94.1%(HT1-4 2013 AY)
93.8%(HT1-4 2012 AY)
R ▼ HT1-4 AY to date
3c. SILC attendance (cross-phase) 90.4%(HT1-4 2012 AY)
91.1%(HT1-4 2012 AY)
85.9%(HT1-5 2011 AY)
R ▲ HT1-4 AY to date
4. NEET 5.3%(Oct 13)
6.3%(Oct 13)
5.9% (Nov 12 - 1353)
7.8%(1744)
7.7%(1639)
6.4%(1397)
6.4%(1427)
R ▼ 30/11/13 1 month
5.Early Years Foundation Stage good level of development
52%(2013 AY)
48%(2013 AY)
63%(2012 AY) G N/A Oct 13 SFR AY
6. Key Stage 2 level 4+ in reading, writing and maths
76% (2013 AY)
77% (2013 AY)
73% (2012 AY) A ▲ Dec 13 SFR AY
7. 5+ A*-C GCSE inc English and maths 60.2%(2013 AY)
59.7%(2013 AY)
55.0% (2012 AY) R ▲ Oct 13 SFR AY
8. Level 3 qualifications at 19 55.0% (2012 AY)
53.8% (2012 AY)
50% (2011 AY) A ► Apr 13 SFR AY
9. 16-18 year olds starting apprenticeships 90,939(Aug 12- Apr 13)
576(Aug 12- Apr 13)
1,716(Aug 11 - Apr 12) N/A ▼ Jul 13 SFR Cumulative
Aug - July
10. Disabled children and young people accessing short breaks
Local indicator
Local indicator 1732 N/A ▼ Apr-12 FY
11. Obesity levels at year 6 18.9% (2013 AY)
19.4%(2013 AY)
19.7% (2011 AY) A ▲ Dec 13 SFR AY
12. Teenage conceptions (rate per 1000) 26.0(Sep 2012)
33.7(Sep 2012)
35.0 (Sep 2011) A ▲ Nov-13 Quarter
13a. Uptake of free school meals - primary 79.8%(2011 FY)
79%(Yorks & H)
77.6%(2011/12 FY) A ▼ Oct-13 FY
13b. Uptake of free school meals - secondary
69.3%(2011 FY)
67.4%(Yorks & H)
71.1%(2011/12 FY) A ► Oct-13 FY
14. Alcohol-related hospital admissions for under-18s
Local indicator
Local indicator 69 N/A ▼ 2012 Calendar
year
Fun 15. Children who agree that they enjoy
their lifeLocal
indicatorLocal
indicator80%
(2012 AY) N/A ► Sep-13 AY
16. 10 to 17 year-olds committing one or more offence
1.9% (2009/10)
2.3%(2009/10)
1.5%(2011/12) N/A ▲ Apr-13 FY
17a. Children and young people's influence in school
Local indicator
Local indicator
68% (2012 AY) N/A ▲ Nov-13 AY
17b. Children and young people's influence in the community
Local indicator
Local indicator
52%(2012 AY) N/A ▼ Nov-13 AY
Key AY - academic year DOT - direction of travel FY - financial year HT - half term SFR - statistical first release (Department for Education / Department of Health data publication)
19.6%(2013 AY)
Do
wel
l in
lear
ning
and
hav
e th
e sk
ills fo
r life
1,149(Aug 12 - Apr 13)
87.5%(HT1-4 2012 AY)
56.6%(2013 AY - provisional)
73.1%(2012/13 FY)
1261
74%(2013 AY - 5563)
51%(2013 AY)
Hea
lthy
lifes
tyle
s
1.0%(2012/13)
57
71.1%(2012/13 FY)
Safe
from
ha
rm
31.4(Sep 2012)
50%(4,189)
The direction of travel arrow is set according to whether the indicator shows that outcomes are improving for children and young people, comparing the most recent period's data to the previous period.
Improving outcomes are shown by a rise in the number/percentage for the following indicators: 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 17. Improving outcomes are shown by a fall in the number/percentage for the following indicators: 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14 and 16.
95.3%(HT1-4 2013 AY)
93.7%(HT1-4 2013 AY)
Voic
e an
d in
fluen
ce
Direction of travel arrow is not applicable for comparing Early Years Foundation Stage outcomes from 2013 with earlier years; assessment in 2013 was against a new framework
80%(2013 AY)
69%(2013 AY)
50%(2013 AY)
RAG-ratings are based on the quartile that Leeds' performance falls into when ranked by all national authorities, based on the most recent national data releases (indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12). Red = 4th quartile, Amber = 3rd quartile, Green = 2nd or 1st quartile.
Where robust data by local authority is unavailable, a proxy method of RAG-rating has been used to make a judgement about performance in comparison to national levels (indicators 13a and 13b).
In the remaining cases (indicators 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17) it is not currently possible to benchmark performance against national or statistical neighbour authorites. In these cases the direction of travel arrow can still be used to assess local changes in performance.
Comparative national data for academic attainment indicators are the result for all state-maintained schools
50
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
Monthly obsessions tracker by clusterMonth: November 2013
Select cluster from drop-down box below:ACES
Obsession Latest position Progress since CYPP start
Safely reduce the number of children looked after (data from October 2013) 76 1 19% 12
Reduce the number of young people not in employment, education or training (unadjusted NEET)
57 2 -40% -38
Reduce school absence: primary 4.2% -1.6
Reduce school absence: secondary 10.8% -1.9
Notes1 - The change columns for absence data are expressed as percentage point increases/reductions.2 - Absence data covers HT1-5 of each academic year and is updated once annually3 - From April 2013 Wigton Moor primary school moved from EPOSS to Alwoodley. This has the effect of moving three LSOAs from EPOSS to Alwoodley. Population totals have been updated accordingly which are part of the reason for substantial rises in CLA and NEET in Alwoodley since the start of the CYPP and corresponding falls for these indicators in EPOSS.
Change since last month
% change since CYPP start
Change since CYPP start
N/A
N/AN/A
N/A
01020304050607080
020406080
100120
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0
HT1-5 2009/10 HT1-5 2010/11 HT1-5 2011/12
9.510.010.511.011.512.012.513.0
HT1-5 2009/10 HT1-5 2010/11 HT1-5 2011/12
51
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 1
Children and Young People's Plan Key Indicator Dashboard - Cluster level: November 2013
Primary attendance4
Secondary attendance4
Early Years Foundation
Stage 4
Key Stage 2 Level 4+ in
reading, writing and
maths 4
5 A*-C GCSEs inc
Eng and Maths 4
Level 3 quals at age
19 5 7
Obesity levels at Year 6 5
Primary uptake of
FSM 4
Secondary uptake of
FSM 4
Alcohol-related hospital
admissions for under-
18s 5 6
Time period covered HT1-4 12/13 HT1-4 12/13 2013 AY 2013 AY 2012 AY 2012 AY 2011/12 AY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2012Leeds 95.3% 93.7% 51% 74% 55.0% 50.0% 19.9% 73.1% 71.1% 57Cluster No. RPTT No. RPTT No. % No. RPT No. RPTENE - Alwoodley 2 14 25.0 8 14.3 95.8% 95.2% 30 4.9 64% 85% 59% 63.5% 14.9% 68.3% 72.4% <5 24 29.3 13 5.4ENE - C.H.E.S.S.1 102 135.0 33 43.7 93.2% N/A 84 9.0 31% 59% N/A 42.6% 20.9% 72.3% unavailable 6 48 46.4 43 14.3ENE - EPOSS 2 6 8.3 7 9.7 96.2% 93.2% 19 2.7 65% 87% 60% 59.3% 13.9% 62.0% 59.4% <5 22 14.0 7 2.1ENE - Inner East 219 190.1 67 58.2 94.4% 92.1% 150 10.1 45% 64% 34% 39.0% 22.4% 76.6% 75.0% <5 111 74.2 69 16.0ENE - N.E.X.T. 18 22.8 <5 95.8% 94.7% 38 3.4 59% 77% 58% 69.8% 19.2% 61.6% 74.0% <5 25 18.7 16 4.8ENE - NEtWORKS 27 47.5 33 58.0 95.3% 93.9% 38 4.9 64% 66% 33% 56.9% 20.5% 73.4% 70.5% 26 28.6 22 9.8ENE - Seacroft Manston 100 101.8 93 94.6 94.5% 91.1% 149 9.6 45% 73% 44% 40.6% 22.7% 72.6% 69.9% 6 99 54.6 51 12.2SSE - Ardsley & Tingley 10 29.0 <5 95.8% 94.3% 16 2.9 57% 84% 68% 65.0% 14.3% 70.0% 71.8% <5 25 36.9 10 6.1SSE - Beeston, Cottingley and Middleton 90 113.4 49 61.7 95.1% 94.5% 88 8.0 39% 74% 57% 39.4% 24.4% 73.3% 53.6% <5 83 68.3 36 11.6SSE - Brigshaw 18 36.4 16 32.3 95.6% 94.6% 37 4.7 62% 78% 59% 53.8% 20.2% 72.2% 63.6% 6 32 36.2 7 3.2SSE - Garforth <5 6 16.6 96.0% 96.3% 15 2.5 52% 75% 74% 61.6% 16.8% 68.4% 69.3% 22 30.5 <5SSE - J.E.S.S 216 212.6 130 127.9 94.6% 90.6% 127 10.1 35% 64% 33% 31.0% 24.4% 77.5% unavailable 5 106 71.9 64 17.3SSE - Morley 40 46.8 37 43.3 95.4% 94.7% 55 4.6 54% 80% 53% 45.5% 16.0% 69.4% 63.8% <5 52 38.0 23 6.5SSE - Rothwell 22 34.9 16 25.4 95.5% 92.9% 42 5.3 63% 74% 54% 44.8% 19.8% 68.8% 73.3% <5 33 30.6 18 6.9SSE - Templenewsam Halton 38 67.6 18 32.0 95.4% 93.5% 61 6.8 45% 72% 59% 48.4% 18.1% 70.4% 59.5% <5 66 65.9 19 7.7WNW - ACES 76 151.9 29 58.0 95.3% 89.0% 60 8.3 37% 72% 28% 33.2% 21.2% 78.5% 65.8% <5 44 56.6 33 17.2WNW - Aireborough 13 18.1 <5 96.2% 94.7% 34 3.5 65% 82% 70% 69.1% 17.9% 72.0% 55.6% <5 28 22.5 <5WNW - Bramley 92 122.5 55 73.3 95.1% 93.5% 101 9.2 36% 63% 57% 36.7% 21.8% 71.3% 79.1% <5 98 80.1 37 12.0WNW - ESNW 15 30.2 13 26.2 95.3% 92.5% 21 3.0 55% 77% 47% 57.1% 19.7% 71.9% 67.5% <5 26 29.4 10 4.6WNW - Farnley 24 63.8 20 53.1 95.2% 94.1% 63 11.1 53% 78% 57% 39.1% 20.8% 70.9% 76.9% 35 52.0 14 9.4WNW - Horsforth 14 37.4 5 13.3 96.6% 95.1% 17 3.1 54% 85% 63% 67.9% 13.4% 71.8% unavailable 19 33.0 7 4.5WNW - Inner NW Hub 50 77.3 46 71.1 95.1% 94.3% 56 6.6 62% 76% 58% 57.6% 22.0% 75.7% 64.9% <5 42 38.1 38 14.7WNW - OPEN XS 52 165.3 32 101.7 94.2% 90.6% 35 9.8 54% 63% 25% 41.7% 32.2% 79.6% 85.1% 20 44.3 20 19.6WNW - Otley/Pool/Bramhope 7 16.9 14 33.8 96.0% 95.0% 13 2.2 65% 84% 73% 64.8% 16.5% 77.8% unavailable 13 16.0 12 6.3WNW - Pudsey 30 30.9 36 37.0 95.5% 92.8% 67 4.8 56% 79% 62% 52.2% 18.4% 66.6% unavailable <5 46 29.9 18 4.5Key: AY - academic year FSM - free school meals FY - financial year RPT - rate per thousand RPTT - rate per ten thousand
Notes1 - C.H.E.S.S. cluster does not include any secondary schools.
4 - Data for these indicators is by schools within the cluster, not by pupils living in the cluster area. 5 - Data for these indicators is by children and young people living in the cluster area, not attending schools in the cluster6 - Data suppressed for instances of fewer than 5.7 - Data based on where the young person lived three years previously when they were in Year 11, regardless of where they actually gained the Level 3 qualification. 8 - Young people's records with an unknown address that were previously coded to JESS cluster (as they are given the default postcode for the igen centre) have now been removed from the NEET count for this cluster from October 2013 onwards. Historical data cannot be updated, so NEET data for JESS in the cluster obsessions worksheet does contain unknown addresses.
3 - Data by cluster for these indicators does not add up to the Leeds total, due to some children's records having a missing postcode, or an out of authority postcode. For NEET data, the city-wide total also includes a proportion of young people whose status has expired. For children looked after the postcode used is where the child lived at the point of becoming looked after, not placement postcode.
1352 6.4%
2 - On 1 April 2013 Wigton Moor Primary moved from EPOSS to Alwoodley. As some data-sets pre-date this boundary change, data for some indicators is only available by the previous boundaries. This will be updated over time.
44.4795 1.1%
Children looked after 3
5 6
As at 31/10/13
Child protection plans 3 5 6
As at 31/10/13
10-17 yr old offenders 5 6
07/12-06/13
Teenage conceptions 5
6 Adjusted
NEET 3 4 5 8
As at 30/11/13 06/09-06/10
52
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 1
East North East area West North West area South area
Alwoodley Aireborough Ardsley and Tingley
CHESS (Chapeltown and Harehills extended support services)
ACES (Armley cluster extended services)
Beeston, Cottingley and Middleton
EPOSS (Elmete partnership of schools and services) Bramley Brigshaw
Inner EastESNW (Extended services north west: Weetwood, Adel and Wharfdale)
Garforth
N.E.X.T. (North East Extended Together: Moortown and Roundhay)
FarnleyJESS (Joint extended schools and services: Beeston Hill, Holbeck, Belle Isle and Hunslet)
NEtWORKS (Meanwood and Chapel Allerton) Horsforth Seacroft Manston
Seacroft Manston Inner NW Hub Morley
Otley/Pool/Bramhope Rothwell
Open XS (Hyde Park, Woodhouse and part of Headingley)
Templenewsam Halton
Pudsey
Some clusters cross over area boundaries. Where this is the case, they are listed under more than one area.
53
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 1
Number of children looked after - OBSESSION INDICATOR
The result includes unaccompanied asylum seekers.
Number of children subject to child protection plans
Allocations to cluster are by the child’s current address at the date when the report was run.
For all indicators, data is suppressed for instances of 5 or fewer young people in a cluster.
Allocations to cluster are by the postcode where the child was living before they came into care, not by placement address. This means that the child could no longer be living in the cluster, and indeed could have left the cluster some time ago.
The number of children looked after (CLA) is reported from Frameworki on the date given on the dashboard. The result is not a cumulative count of the number of children that have been in care during the reporting period, but rather the result is a snapshot of the numbers recorded as being in care on that particular date. The number does not include children who receive respite with foster carers through the Family Support Service (under S17 of the Children Act) or children who are solely looked after under respite S20 Short Term Breaks and Shared Care. There can be delays in inputting a record of a child who has just gone into care, or similarly for a child who has just left care, so reported numbers for the same snapshot day but run at a later date could differ.
Some records cannot be allocated to cluster because the record may show no postcode; a postcode for an address outside Leeds; an unrecognised or incorrectly input postcode that cannot be matched to a cluster; or a confidential postcode.
Monthly data are not comparable with out-turns from statutory returns (SSDA903, CiN Census) as they are not subject to intensive data quality/cleanup. The monthly data may show a small level of under or over-reporting across the year, but can be used to track trends.
The number of children subject to child protection plans is reported from Frameworki on the date given on the dashboard. The result is not a cumulative count of the number of children that have been on plan during the reporting period, but rather the result is a snapshot of the numbers recorded as being on plan on that particular date. There can be delays in inputting a record of a child who has just become subject to a plan, or similarly for a child who has just come off a plan, so reported numbers for the same snapshot day but run at a later date could differ.
From 2011-12, rates per 10,000 children are calculated using GP registration data for children and young people aged 0-18 (not including age 18). Earlier comparative rates per 10,000 are based on the mid-year ONS population estimate for this age group. The GP data is preferable, as this allows us to calculate at a cluster level, ONS data is not available below city level. GP registration data tends to state that the population is higher than that shown by the ONS estimates. For this reason, comparisons over time may differ.
Some records cannot be allocated to cluster because the record may show no postcode; a postcode for an address outside Leeds; an unrecognised or incorrectly input postcode that cannot be matched to a cluster; or a confidential postcode.
54
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 2
Primary and secondary attendance rate - OBSESSION INDICATOR
Cluster performance is based on which cluster a school belongs to, not the home address of pupils who live in the cluster.
NEET - OBSESSION INDICATOR
This is the number of total sessions attended by all pupils, expressed as a percentage of the number of possible sessions across all schools in the cluster. Not all schools will have the same number of possible sessions in any given period, as they may be closed for training days, or shut due to bad weather or other unforeseen event, e.g., boiler failure. This will not skew performance, because where a school is closed, the number of possible sessions will be reduced accordingly.
The result is the adjusted number of young people who are NEET on the last day of each month, not the total number of young people who may have been NEET during
The definition of this indicator changed nationally in April 2011 to be based on where a young person lives, rather than where they attend school or college, and to be based on their academic age. This means young people who were aged 16, 17 or 18 on 31 August are included in the cohort for the following 12 months. Previously young people dropped out of the cohort on their 19th birthday. Reporting did not take place for any local authorities in April and May 2011 while the new methodology was being tested. Results from June 2011 onwards are not directly comparable with previous data.
Attendance is reported based on school half terms, usually HT 1-4 or 1-5. This information comes from termly school census returns. These have a significant delay due to data validation processes, with HT 1 and 2 data available mid-spring, HT 3 and 4 data in late summer and HT 5 data in late autumn. The direction of travel arrow is determined by a comparison with performance for the equivalent period in the previous year, rather than against the last year's full-year result.
SILC attendance is cross-phase (both primary and secondary), as all but one of the six SILCs in Leeds operate both primary and secondary provision. The result is combined data from the six SILCs in Leeds. This data is not disaggregated to cluster level, as there is not a SILC in every cluster. Comparative national data includes non-maintained special schools, there is one school of this type in Leeds (St John's School for the Deaf). National data on SILC attendance is published once annually for half-terms 1 to 5. Data for other periods over the course of the academic year is from half-termly returns. Data in the February 2013 edition of the dashboard is from HT 1-4 census returns. Census data is only collected once a year for SILCs.
Allocation to cluster is by the young person's home postcode.
Monthly data are not comparable with out-turns from statutory returns (SSDA903, CiN Census) as they are not subject to intensive data quality/cleanup. The monthly data may show a small level of under or over-reporting across the year, but can be used to track trends.
From 2011-12, rates per 10,000 children are calculated using GP registration data for children and young people aged 0-18 (not including age 18). Earlier comparative rates per 10,000 are based on the mid-year ONS population estimate for this age group. The GP data is preferable, as this allows us to calculate at a cluster level, ONS data is not available below city level. GP registration data tends to state that the population is higher than that shown by the ONS estimates. For this reason, comparisons over time may differ.
55
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 3
Foundation Stage good level of development
Allocation to cluster is by school, not by pupil home postcode.
Key Stage 2 level 4+ English and maths
5+ A*-C GCSE inc English and maths
Level 3 qualifications at 19
Achievements in the following qualifications are counted at level 3: 1 Advanced Extension Award equals 5% 1 Free Standing Maths Qualification at level 3 equals 10% 1 Key Skills pass at level 3 equals 15% 1 AS level (including VCE) at grade A to E equals 25% 1 A/A2 level (including VCE) at grade A to E equals 50% 1 Advanced Pilot 6 unit GNVQ equals 50%
the month. The "adjusted NEET" figure takes account of the number of young people whose status is not known. A formula is applied so that some young people whose status is not known are assumed to be NEET. This is added to the NEET figure to give the adjusted NEET figure. Some records cannot be allocated to cluster because the record may have no address; a postcode for an address outside Leeds; or an unrecognised or incorrectly input postcode that cannot be matched to a cluster.
A good level of development is achieving 78 points across the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP), including 6 points in the communication, language and literacy strands and the personal, social and emotional development strands.
Allocation to cluster is by school, not by pupil home postcode. Results by school can be viewed on the Department for Education's performance tables website at:
The adjustment calculation means that while the percentage NEET may fall from one month to the next, the adjusted number of young people NEET may not fall. This is because the cohort size in the denominator can vary, sometimes by several hundred, if the number of young people whose status is not known has increased or reduced.
Allocation to cluster is by school, not by pupil home postcode. Results by school can be viewed on the Department for Education's performance tables website at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/performancetables/
Young people are counted in the indicator if they were on the roll of a Leeds school at academic age 15 (Year 11), regardless of whether they still live in Leeds when they reached Level 3. Disaggregation to cluster level is based on where the young person lived at this time.
http://www.education.gov.uk/performancetables/
56
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 4
1 Advanced GNVQ pass equals 100%1 NVQ pass at level 3 or higher equals 100%1 ‘full’ VRQ pass at level 3 or higher equals 100% 1 International Baccalaureate pass equals 100% 1 Advanced Apprenticeship pass equals 100%
16-18 year olds starting apprenticeships
Disabled children and young people accessing short breaks
Obesity levels at year 6
Currently it is not possible to know what proportion of eligible children are accessing short breaks, as there is no single register of the 0-18 disabled population, although plans are in place to develop one. When this is in place, a measure can be developed about the percentage of children who accessed short breaks. Work is also taking place to develop a measure of service satisfaction, so to know what difference the service is making to the lives of disabled children and families.
National data comparisons are for pupils who were in the state sector at academic age 15, not all England.
AS and A/A2 levels are subject to discounting. For example, say a learner gains 1 AS level (25%) in 2000 and 1 A level (50%) in the same subject in 2001. Correct discounting means the person has 25% of a full level 3 in 2000 and then 50% in 2001 as the AS level is replaced by the A level.
Combinations of qualifications are allowed where their parts add up to 100% for that level.
The figure is the number of disabled children and young people who have received a short break during the financial year. A short break gives disabled children and young people enjoyable experiences away from their primary carers and also gives parents and carers a valuable break from caring responsibilities. Children can access a number of short breaks during the course of a year. Short breaks can take place in the daytime or overnight and can last from a few hours to a few days. They can be in the child's own home, the home of a carer, or in a residential or community setting. Childcare for parents to enable them to attend work or access work related training is not a short break. However, childcare settings can be used as a short break.
Allocation to cluster is by the child's home postcode.
This indicator is not available at cluster level. Data is supplied by the National Apprenticeship Service on a quarterly basis. The contract year for apprenticeships runs from 1 August to 31 July. In-year data is provisional and is confirmed in December of each year. Comparative national and statistical neighbour data is published by the National Apprenticeship Service as a simple total, rather than a rate for the population.
Short breaks are available for children and young people, aged from birth up to their 18th birthday, who are disabled and / or those with complex health needs where the disability has a significant impact on their lives. This includes children and young people with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, sensory impairments and physical impairments.
57
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 5
This is a sample indicator, so it is not possible to say how many children this equates to.
Teenage conception
Uptake of free school meals - primary and secondaryAllocation to cluster is by school, not by pupil home postcode.
Under 18 alcohol-related hospital admissionsThe data source for this is hospital admissions data, based on date of discharge. Allocation to cluster is by a young person's home postcode.
Conception statistics include pregnancies that result in one or more live births, or a legal abortion under the Abortion Act 1967. Miscarriages and illegal abortions are not included. The indicator is a count of conceptions, so instances of multiple births only count once.
Where the result for a cluster says 'unavailable,' this is because school meal take-up data has not been submitted by the school(s) in a cluster.
This indicator is based on average take-up over a school financial year, not academic year. Pupils are counted as being FSM eligible, and therefore included in the denominator, if they are recorded as having FSM entitlement in the January school census that occurs during that financial year.
http://www.leeds.nhs.uk/Downloads/Public%20Health/Childrens%20Health/NCMP%20report%2009%20to10%20FINAL.pdfThe 2009/10 report for Leeds can be downloaded at:
There is a an even greater time lag in receiving data that includes postcodes and can therefore be broken down by cluster, so cluster data does not cover the same time period, as the more recent city-wide result.
Allocation to cluster is by the young woman's home postcode. The postcode of the woman’s address at time of birth or abortion is used to determine residence at time of conception.
Statistical neighbour data is not available, regional data is used as a comparator instead. The last comparison period was in 2011, as national data collection of school meal take-up has ended. National and regional comparator data for primary schools includes special schools.
The city-wide result is the latest quarterly average. Annual results relate to the calendar year. There is a 14 month time lag in obtaining this data. As birth registration can be legally undertaken up to 6 weeks after birth, information on a birth may not be available until 11 months after the date of conception. When all birth and abortion data
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/health-and-lifestyles/obesity/national-child-measurement-programme-england-2010-11-school-year
The data source is the National Child Measurement Programme, which is undertaken once every academic year. Comparative national data can be viewed on the NHS Information Centre at:
58
Produced by: Children's Performance Service 6
Children who agree that they enjoy their life
% of 10 to 17 year-olds committing one or more offence
Children and young people's influence in school and in the community
• How much difference do you think you (as a young person or young people) can make to the way the things are run at school?• How much difference do you think you (as a young person or young people) can make to the way the things are run in the area where you live?
Data by cluster is available on a rolling 12 month basis, reported with a 3 month lag, to allow for the time the court process takes between a young person being arrested and being convicted of an offence.
The date from which the offender is included in the count is the date when the offence is proven, not the date of the offence.
The data source for this indicator is the Growing Up In Leeds survey, conducted annually in Leeds schools over sample year groups. The survey is optional, so while all schools are encouraged to take part, not all will do so.
In October 2011 there was a change in the care pathway from A&E and the way this gets coded as an admission. The pathway now includes referral to an assessment unit, where a decision on whether or not to admit is taken. Only young people who were admitted after having been seen in the assessment centre are now counted as inpatients for alcohol reasons. This means that only the most serious cases are now admitted to hospital, and means that data from 2011 is not directly comparable to 2012.
The result is the percentage of respondents who answer either ‘A great deal’ or ‘A fair amount.’
The questions that relate to this indicator are:
Allocation to cluster is by home postcode of the young person. The 10-17 cluster population is calculated using GP registration data.
The data source for this indicator is the Growing Up In Leeds survey, conducted annually in Leeds schools over sample year groups. The survey is optional, so while all schools are encouraged to take part, not all will do so.
The result is the percentage of respondents who answer 'in the survey that they agree with the statement 'I enjoy my life.'
59
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
60
- 1 -
Attendees: Sal Tariq – Chair (ST), Rob Murray (RM), Debbie Reilly (DR), Barbara Newton (BN) Tracey Phillips (TP), Alison McCoy (AMcC), Andrea Richardson (ARi), Dr Alison Share (AS), Sarah Johal (SJ), Cath Jones (CJ), Alun Rees (AR), Lisa Martin (LM). Apologies: Jane Mischenko (JM), Andy Peaden (AP), Inderjeet Hunjan (IH), Mark Hopkins (MH), Ken Morton (KM), Julia Preston (JP). Minutes: Sinead McGuinness (SMcG) 1 1.1
Minutes of last meeting The minutes of the meeting of 24.09.2013 were agreed as an accurate record.
ACTIONS
1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2
Matters arising: Item 1.2.2: Care Leavers Report - Emily Munro’s report is awaiting final sign off. It should be available within the next few weeks and ST will arrange for it to be circulated to the group. Item 1.2.5: Placement Plans - DR is now attending the CSDMs meeting.
ST
1.2.3 Item 1.2.6: Looked After Children Terminology - Members agreed that use of the term LAC was continuing in schools and that some targeted activity may be necessary. CJ informed the group that there was activity on-going within the ISU to remove the term ‘LAC’ from forms and leaflets. ST confirmed that children and young people’s preferred term was ‘looked after children’ and for the purposes of report writing ‘CLA’ could be used.
1.2.4 Item 2.1: Looked after children scorecard - LM informed the group that she had ran an
exception report on those children that didn’t have an up to date dental check and forwarded this to DR. ST suggested that a system should be put in place to report when looked after children became pregnant. ARi stated that the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) did pick up on cases when young people had previously been looked after. ST suggested that this issue could be reported via the PAs. ST requested a meeting between RM, ARi and DR to explore this further.
RM / ARi / DR
1.2.5 Item 3: Safer Homes – JM has agreed to part fund this project. 1.2.6 Item 10.0 Care Leavers Council – The group agreed that a permanent member from
the Voice and Influence team was required to join the group. SMcG
2.0 Looked after children scorecard 2.1
LM informed the group that; - The overall number of looked after children continue to decline and that the
Multi Agency Looked After Partnership Minutes of Meeting 19th November 2013 9.00am 11.00am Boardroom, 10th Floor West, Merrion House Item 3b
61
- 2 -
trend in numbers is downwards. - That the highest proportion of children and young people were placed in-house
foster placements. - This month has seen a slight decrease in IFA placements and a slight increase
in the number of in-house foster care placements. - The percentage of children with an up to date HNA continues to improve. New
arrangements to improve information sharing with colleagues in health have improved performance.
- The number of children with an up to date dental check still requires some work particularly around under two’s.
- The percentage of children and young people with an allocated social worker was 99.9%, meaning that in the period one case had been unallocated for more than a fortnight.
- The data on reviews is month on month and not a cumulative figure for year to date. LM agreed to add the cumulative figure to the report.
- The YOS data highlights the number of looked after children and young people known to YOS as a percentage of total young people supervised on YOS books. ST suggested that the data should include a comparison percentage in terms of total young people known to YOS compared to the total number of looked after children and young people. ST requested that the data also include detail by age, gender and placement type. LM agreed to request that Stephen Death include this.
- All Children’s Homes full inspection reports remain good or outstanding.
LM LM
2.2 ST re-iterated the need to ensure that positive performance was being accurately
recorded.
3.0 Blue Strip Care Leavers 3.1 LM informed the group that the blue strip care leavers data provided core data on
whether care leavers aged 19, 20 and 21 where in contact with CSWS, were living in suitable accommodation and were in EET/ NEET by month and by year to date. ST stated that there was increasingly positive performance on the numbers of young people having been contacted. RM suggested that the target for the service should be set at 95%. ST added that the service was getting better at identifying those young people that they should be in contact with. RM stated that clarification needed to be sought on those young people who were in touch with Adult services. The group requested clarification on what was deemed as unsuitable accommodation. RM confirmed that unsuitable accommodation was B&B, in prison or where there was a significant risk to the young person. RM informed the group that the EET figure for care leavers was negative in comparison with their peers and that this was the area for most concern. ST informed the group that consideration was being given to putting a dedicated worker in place.
4.0 Interim Annual Report of the Children Looked After Health Team 4.1 DR informed the group that herself and Susan Lines had produced the interim annual
report (April 2013 – October 2013). DR stated that the report summarises the main issues including details on;
- What the Children Looked After (CLA) team does. - What is provided.
62
- 3 -
- Achievements in the first 6 months of 2013. - Challenges - Goals for the next 6 months. - Case study.
4.2 DR noted that Appendix 2 outlines the key actions and timescales in place for where
the team wants to be by April 2014. DR explained that a number of reasons could lead to an exclusion from the 20 day CQUIN target (e.g. no longer looked after). DR informed the group that for out of area of placements LCH have responsibility to ensure that these children’s needs are met, but not for providing the services. DR added that there was a contract in place between LCH and the CCGs and this would commence in 2014.
4.3 DR stated that one of the main challenges for the CLA health team was care leavers.
The idea is to extend the health offer to young people post 18, based on the individual’s needs. DR stated that the plan is to ask young people what they want and how they want it presented. DR noted that it was difficult to draw out particular themes (e.g. could not currently identify if CSE was a growing trend) and that this related to the reporting mechanisms. AS added that there was now regional agreement to use the BAAF forms and that this could improve reporting and recording.
4.4 DR noted the positive case study highlighted and suggested that other powerful case
studies were available. DR stated that work had been completed on the better use of the SDQs and that the school nursing team was progressing this.
4.5 ST noted that a key issue was the co-location of the specialist looked after children’s
nurses and CSWS. ST informed the group that one nurse was already in place at Hunslet Hall, in ENE co-location could be with CSWS staff at Colonel House and that co-location with staff in the South had started. ST suggested that the main issue was to take the opportunity to link the locality teams.
4.6 RM raised a concern relating to the number of iHNAs not being completed due to an
exclusion reason recorded. DR confirmed that a late referral from CSWS would be classed as an exception. ST raised a question over whether CSWS were automatically notifying when sending through late referrals. CJ suggested that a snapshot of referrals late to CSWS and late to health would be useful. DR confirmed that she had details of late notifications and that these details could be shared. ST suggested that as a one off exercise to check cases in July, August and September which were late referrals and reasons/ teams and to check whether Framework I sent out a direct notification.
DR / SJ
5.0 External Placements 5.1 AS, DR, AMcC, CSWS HoS, CDSMs and Lynn Abbott had a meeting to discuss all out
of area placements. There were four groups to discuss the main issues with OOa placements and to come up with some ideas / start an action plan. Suggestions included;
7.0 Update on work with Professor Stein and Dr Emily Munro 7.1 RM informed the group that care planning had been identified as an area for focus by
the senior leadership team. RM stated that it had been agreed that there would be
63
- 4 -
specific work undertaken with the care leavers teams. RM stated that all 13+ teams would have the opportunity to review a good leaving care team and how it operates. RM stated that the second piece of work on this related to what the research tells us. RM stated that positive research has tended to highlight the ineffectiveness of systems rather than staff. RM informed the group that Professors Mike Stein and Nina Biehal had agreed to deliver some of the annual celebrating social work conference in December. RM stated that there were plans in place to share their research and learning via a Share Point site. Furthermore that RM had received placement stability data set from the DfE and the data set on children returning home from care. RM agreed to share this with the group.
RM
8.0 Event about young people in care and offending 8.1 RM informed that group that two events for front line staff were being arranged in
November. RM stated that all governors had been invited from all areas where young people were in custody.
9.0 Update on residential homes 9.1 RM informed the group that all Leeds children’s homes were judged as good or
outstanding.
9.2 RM stated that a decision had been taken to close the two largest homes, Inglewood
and Wood Lane. RM stated that Inglewood has been closed and that all young people had been successfully moved to alternative placements. RM stated that three five bedded units were being opened, one in the new year and the others in February 2014. RM informed the group that the service was working with Mark Finnis on improving the quality of children’s homes in Leeds. RM stated that the service was considering developing a home for young people with sexually harmful behaviours.
10.0 Care leavers council 10.1 RM informed the group that a care leavers council was being set up and that the VIC
team are coordinating this. RM stated that the purpose would be to ensure that the views and opinions of care leavers were influential in reviewing the care leaver charter, improving pathway planning, improving participation at reviews and becoming involved in the recruitment of staff. RM suggested that the group needed to meet with children and young people on a regular basis. RM informed the group that children and young people would ‘Takeover’ the Corporate Carers meeting in November as part of the Children’s Commissioner Takeover day activities. RM suggested that once this had been completed the suggestion was that it would become a regular occurrence.
11.0 Case studies 11.1 PBe circulated a case study relating to a young person who had involvement from
GIPSIL. RM suggested that members take the case study outside of the meeting to consider how agencies could have worked together more effectively to improve outcomes for the young person.
All members
12.0 AOB
64
- 5 -
12.1 CJ informed the group that the IRO service would begin to undertake reviews with young people up to the age of 19.5 years. CJ stated that young people would be offered 3 reviews between ages of 18 – 19.5. CJ stated that this would be a paper based review with an IRO. RM stated that this would assist in ensuring that plans were accurately reflecting young people’s circumstances and future plan from 18 onwards. CJ stated that Anne Baxter was putting some information together and that she would ensure that partners are made aware.
CJ / AB
12.2 SW informed the group that there was some funding available for cultural projects,
particularly music. SW requested that members consider and feedback to him any suggestions on how this could be utilised to improve outcomes for looked after children.
All members
13.0 Date and time of next meeting:
Tuesday 11th November, 9.00am – 11.00am Boardroom, 10th Floor West, Merrion House
65
1
CTB Workforce Reform & Practice Development Sub Group Minutes of 25 November 2013 at Boardroom, 1st Floor East, Merrion House
Present: Sue Rumbold Chief Officer for Partnership Development and Business Support Andy Lloyd Children’s Services, Head of Workforce Development Gail Palmer-Smeaton Headteacher, Partner Head Ann Pemberton Young Lives Leeds, Manager, Home Start Leeds Jeannette Morris-Boam Young Lives Leeds, Co-ordinator Professor Nick Frost Leeds Metropolitan University Jim Hopkinson Children’s Services, Head of Targeted Services Raminder Aujla ISU, Education and Early Start Safeguarding Team Manager Natalie Samuel Children’s Services, Complex Needs Service, Best Practice Development Attendance:
Arfan Hussain Leeds City Council, Governance & Partnership Administrator Rebecca McCormack Leeds City Council, Parenting Unit Manager Kirsty Haynes Leeds City Council, HR Business Partner Apologies:
Sam Prince Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust Karen Shinn LSCB Assistant Manager Jenny Roussounis LSCB Training & Development Officer Elaine McShane Children’s Services, Children’s Social Work Service, WNW Head of Children’s Social
Work Service Diane Reynard Headteacher East SILC/ Executive Principle South SILC Lisa Banton Children’s Services, Workforce Development Lead Debbie Addlestone West Yorkshire Probabtion
66
2
Item Action 1.0 Standing Items 1.1 Welcome, introductions and apologies
1.1.1 Sue Rumbold welcomed all colleagues to the meeting and apologies were noted.
1.2 Minutes and matters arising from 21 October 2013 1.2.1 The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting with the following matters
arising:
1.2.2 Item 2.1 – Andy Lloyd informed members that details of the next Family Support Workers training session, due to take place in February 2014, will be circulated in early December 2013. Invitations will be circulated widely, including to schools, 3rd sector and Health. The session will be limited to 25 placed and applicants must complete the section on why they would like to attend. He emphasised that there will be a non-attendance fee.
1.2.2.1 Members commented that the feedback they have received on the courses were highly positive, met their needs and practically impacted how they work. Members agreed for evaluation feedback to be included in the details that are circulated to encourage applications. Furthermore, that a follow up occurs with line managers to ensure that the training is embedded and assess its impact.
AL
1.2.2.2 Members agreed to receive a list of sectors that attended the previous training session to ensure there is engagement across the one children’s workforce (e.g. from school based settings) and to encourage applications from their own sector.
AL/ ALL
1.2.3 Item 2.1 – Jim Hopkinson provided feedback on the impact of Restorative Practice (RP) within Targeted Services. He stated that:
• Almost all members of staff have attended the Level 1 training. All Attendance and Family Intervention Service staff have completed the training.
• It is a key aspect of their approach for Families First with additional training given to embed high support and high challenge.
1.2.3.1 Members queried how to best evidence the change that RP is having. Members commented formal requests for information could be made asking members of staff and managers on how RP has changed practice during supervision. Members stated that case studies can provide a powerful tool to do so with a focus on its impact on both practitioners and families.
1.2.3.2 Prof Nick Frost commented that in September 2014 there will be a national conference on Family Support. One proposal is to collect 1000 testimonies from families that have received a family support service.
1.2.3.3 Members agreed for Targeted Services to include an aspect on how RP principals were applied and their impact within the mechanism for producing future case studies.
JH
1.2.3.4 Kirsty Haines commented the process for analysing impact of programmes is occurring Council wide by using the metrics available to analyse the performance of related indicators.
1.2.4 Item 2.1 – Sue Rumbold to liaise with Sam Prince in securing a Health representative. SR 1.2.5 Item 2.2 – Members provided positive feedback on the website ‘Doing Good Leeds’1. 1.2.6 Item 3.2 – Anne Pemberton confirmed that the term 3rd Sector will be used and that a clear
definition will be provided on the Doing Good Leeds website to ensure its understanding.
1.2.7 Item 3.3 – Andy Lloyd confirmed that a section on education settings was included in the Workforce Development strategy that went to Children’s Trust Board (CTB) with further
1 http://doinggoodleeds.org.uk/
67
3
consultation with Gail Webb, Head of Learning Improvement. Gail Palmer-Smeaton stated that the Partner Heads would have liked to have seen the education section prior to going to CTB. Members agreed for Andy Lloyd to liaise with the Partner Heads on the section.
AL
1.2.8 Item 4.10 – Andy Lloyd stated that there has been a delay in establishing the research and ethic task & finish group to ensure that work is not being replicated from other areas (e.g. Performance team have collated research and organised improvement meetings internally) and an ethics committee taking place elsewhere due to governance related issues. However, he emphasised the importance of the sub group in having a lead due to its partnership wide expertise.
1.2.8.1 Members agreed for the research & ethics task & finish group to meet before the next CTB WR&PD meeting, which would consist of:
• Andy Lloyd • Jeanette Morris-Boam • Gail Palmer-Smeaton • Jim Hopkinson • Performance representative • Prof Nick Frost
AL
1.2.8.2 Members agreed for Kirsty Haines to confirm what ethics committee arrangements are in place for research across the Council, which could be replicated by children’s services if appropriate.
KH
1.2.9 Item 6.1 – Natalie Samuel informed members that a separate piece of work was ongoing to develop Values, Attitudes and Behaviours for children & young people with SEND and their expectations of the workforce. She has ensured that the officers involved are working with Lisa Banton to include it in the work that is taking place by the sub group and to prevent duplication.
LB
1.3 Restorative Practice Update 1.3.1 Andy Lloyd informed members that the:
• Practice Development Groups are being rolled out. • A focus on RP in schools will occur from Spring 2014, which will involve Paul Moran
and Paul Carlyle, and will be led by Simon Flowers. • Following feedback from the sub group, the training course ‘Having difficult
conversations restoratively’, is almost complete and will be offered from January 2014.
• An updated RP strategy will be developed for April 2014 onwards. It is estimated that from April 2014, Leeds will be able to undertake RP training internally without external support.
1.4. Leeds Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) 1.4.1 Andy Lloyd informed members that following meetings with Karen Shinn and Bryan Gocke
where it was agreed that they would:
1.4.2 Further develop the communications between workforce development and LSCB. In particular around Serious Case Reviews & Learning Lesson Review recommendations with a focus on ensuring a mechanism is in place to monitor its implementation and that they are
68
4
relate to specific teams and areas where appropriate. 1.4.3 Lisa Banton and Karen Shinn will meet to ensure that training is not duplicated and that there
is a consistent message being communicated. Members agreed for Raminder Aujla to also be involved in the process. This is due to the number of education safeguarding courses provided under her remit.
LB, KS & RA
1.4.4 A briefing will be developed around Suicide and Self Harm, which occur at a variety of levels (e.g. brief overview through the One Minute Guides for all staff and focused in-depth briefing for relevant teams).
1.4.5 Andy Lloyd and Bryan Gocke to ensure that there is a strong definition, expectation and values around collaborative and joint working.
1.4.6 A further piece of work to occur in the future in strengthening the linkages between the Children’s Trust Board and the LSCB.
1.4.7 Prof Nick Frost informed members that Children’s Commissioner will be publishing its second report on Child Sexual Exploitation.2 Furthermore, Leeds will be hosting a Yorkshire wide conference, organised by the regions safeguarding boards, on 29 November 2013.
2.0 Items of Business 2.1 Working with Parents
2.1.1 Rebecca McCormack informed members that the Working with Parents qualification is endorsed by City & Guilds and is offered at:
• Level 3 – For family support and parenting staff working at Early Intervention/ Universal level.
• Level 4 – Supports work with families with multiple and complex needs. It was developed in response to the Troubled Families agenda, known as Families First in Leeds, and is also included in the service specification for the Family Intervention Service.
2.1.2 It is being proposed that the qualification continues as it is, but is offered by the Family Support Team to a wider range teams/services such as schools, clusters, etc. This could develop into a rolling programme of two Level 3 (40 learners) and two Level 4 (30 learners) courses per year, which will be funding with the Workforce Development team. Further considerations are needed to agree how the places are offered and costs.
2.1.3 Rebecca McCormack confirmed that 146 practitioners have/are in the process of completing the qualification since June 2012 and that there is a demand for the training (e.g. Health have requested for Nursery Nurses to undertake Level 3). Jim Hopkinson stated there may be an opportunity to trade the service in the future within Leeds and externally.
2.1.4 Rebecca McCormack confirmed that the course will be targeted to members of staff within school that work directly with families such as Attendance Improvement staff, Learning
2 Children’s Commissioner reports can be accessed via http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications
69
5
Mentors, etc. This will occur through the rolling programme, which will allow time to ensure that the training is embedded and improve the training through feedback received.
2.1.5 Rebecca McCormack confirmed that it is being considered to initially offer the course widely from January 2013 to ascertain demand and capacity.
2.1.6 Rebecca McCormack confirmed that the course is accredited by City & Guilds and provide quality assurance and internal assessments. Members agreed that, if capacity allows, it should be good practice for all members of staff working with families to undertake the the Working With Parents qualification.
2.1.7 Anne Pemberton stated that it is important to recognise the need to engage Adult’s Services and the 3rd sector who work with families (including those that are directly commissioned), which the training applies to. Furthermore, there is a need to be aware that if the courses become good practice, it will need to be included in commissioning and be provided by the local authority.
2.1.8 Jeanette Morris-Boam raised concerns that the report did not provide enough detail around: • Establishing the level of demand for the Working With Parents qualification if it was
offered widely. • Options available on its delivery if commissioned, fully traded or partially traded
service.
2.1.9 Anne Pemberton commented on the need to liaise greater with Adult Services and partners to ensure that the qualification is embedded within their approaches. Especially, in areas such as the review of the Think Family policy, Adult’s Mental Health service, Alcohol & Substance Misuse, etc.
2.1.10 Members agreed for a small task & finish group to be established consisting of Rebecca McCormack, Lisa Banton, Jeanette Morris-Boam and Sarah Rutty to progress the next phase of the Working with Parents qualification.
RM & LB
2.2 Update on Practice Handbook & Website 2.2.1 Mary Armitage gave members an update on the status of the practice handbook. She
informed members that further consideration is needed on whether it is appropriate to circulate a hard copy of the practice handbook given the number of ongoing changes that are occurring with Children’s Services (e.g. implementation of Framework I, etc.). She is currently liaising with Sam Facer in relation to the transfer the information from the Children Leeds website to Leeds City Council website.
2.2.2 Members agreed for there to no longer be a hard copy of the practice handbook given the number of ongoing changes that are occurring and for the information to be made available on the Leeds City Council website. Mary Armitage will liaise with Communications Team in order to publicise this message to the wider partnership giving details of the information that will be available on the Leeds City Council website and that the practice handbook will not be re-printed
MA
2.2.3 Members agreed for the continuation of the task & finish to consider and update the content MA
70
6
moving from the Children Leeds website to Leeds City Council. This will consist of: • Nicky Mamwell • Anne Pemberton • Karen Shinn/ Lucy Chadwick • Lisa Banton
2.2.4 Members commented that the practice handbook was successful in providing a greater level of cohesion for the one’s children’s workforce and meeting the needs of practitioners at the time of its original publication.
2.3 Workforce Development Strategy Update 2.3.1 Andy Lloyd gave members a presentation on the Workforce Development Strategy
highlighting the following:
2.3.2 The Children's Workforce Development team is the amalgamation of a number of different teams, which had some responsibility for workforce development activities within Children's Services.
2.3.3 The strategy takes into consideration the national context with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child and the need to ensure that as policy documents are published, laws enacted and guidance issued that our training courses reflect the latest requirements. Furthermore, it recognises the importance of the local context of Leeds' Children and Young People's Plan.
2.3.4 It is essential that any work undertaken with children, young people and families is underpinned by clear values, attitudes and behaviours. The Voice & Influence team, Workforce Development team and young people from the Youth Council delivered an event on Values, Attitudes & Behaviours on 17th September 2013. The outcome of the event was a short video from young people at the event stating what they would like the values, attitudes and behaviours to be for the partnership. The event is the beginning of this process and the aim is produce a series of Child Friendly Leeds short films encapsulating the voice of the child on what the values, attitudes and behaviours should be for the one children’s workforce and their expectations, which will be used in a variety of settings such as workshops, inductions, etc. This will occur through future events, which members will be invited to.
2.3.5 The core principles for the strategy are that the work of the partnership will be child centred, restorative in nature and research informed.
2.3.6 The learning and development offer will consist of: • Regular calendar of training which will run every year. • Bespoke training that addresses service specific issues (e.g. new policy, law or
guidance). • Summer schools, blitzes where large numbers of the workforce can receive training
in a short space of time (e.g. in a two week blitz 600 people received restorative practice awareness training) and big venue showcases.
71
7
• Bought in specialist training for very specialist skills and knowledge not currently available in Leeds.
2.3.7 An overview of the Children's Services Workforce Development Core Offer 2013/14, which will be available online and the aim to have service specific offers including career pathways.
2.3.8 The importance of partnership working with a range of organisations and boards, such as Higher Education Institutions, Health, 3rd Sector, Leeds Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), etc. and the ability to transfer knowledge to colleagues and partners around the city.
2.3.9 3 universities in Leeds, others in the region, nationally and locally offer an enormous academic resource to support our ambitions and inform best practice.
2.3.10 An additional training course for Restorative Practice will be offered by the end of 2013 titled, ‘Having difficult conversations restoratively’.
2.3.11 Andy Lloyd informed members that he will be liaising with Gail Webb and the seconded heads in developing a workforce development core offer for schools.
2.3.11 Andy Lloyd stated that feedback from Children’s Trust Board highlighted that there was a need for:
• The Children's Services Workforce Development Offer to have a prescribed list of training for which there would be a clear expectation that members of staff would undertake depending on their role. Furthermore, to further map out the partnership across the city and what courses they would benefit from.
• A collective understanding of child and adolescent development across the partnership for workers that engage with Children's Services. This would include an overview of what it is like to be a child growing up in Leeds and an explanation of the evidence base that is informing practice for Children's Services (e.g. Best Start). There would be an expectation that partners would have a suitable level of awareness.
• An expectation could be included in the specification for commissioned services, but stressed the importance of commissioners to reflect the values, attitudes and behaviours as well.
• Training sessions to be multiagency in order to allow attendees to have a space to talk to each other and develop relationships and a greater understanding of each others' services. This can be instilled from the start of their career through shared inductions to promote the voice of the child in Leeds through common agreed courses across the partnership.
2.3.12 Members agreed for 2/3 events to be organised from Spring 2013 inviting teams who work with children and young people across the partnership to attend as a method of developing a collective understanding on the approaches of Children’s Services. Sue Rumbold stated that it may be possible to approach the First Direct Arena as a venue for the event as they are engaged with Child Friendly Leeds. Andy Lloyd commented that the venue would also be appropriate to use for a marketplace event.
AL
3.0 Any Other Business 3.1 Prof Nick Frost informed members that a report by Sir Martin Narey will be published shortly,
which be relevant to members.
3.2 Jeanette Morris-Boam wished to thank the Workforce Development team for the excellent
72
8
training provided by Sean Duggan to VAL. 3.3 Raminder Aujla informed members that she is undertaking a piece of work with the DfE on
safer recruitment. Members agreed for her to provide an update at a future meeting. RA
3.4 Members agreed to receive an update at the next meeting on the Children and Families Bill. NS 3.5 Members agreed to re-arrange the next two meetings of the sub group. AH
.
73
1
CTB CAMHS Task & Finish Group Minutes of 25 November 2013 at Boardroom, 1st Floor East, Merrion House
Present: Paul Bollom (Chair) LCC, Children’s Services, Head of Service Commissioning & Market Management Ruth Gordon CCG, Project Manager Joe Krasinski LCC, Children’s Services, TaMHS Project Manager Catherine Ward LCC, Adult Social Care Dr Helen Haywood CCG, GP Lead for South & East Jon Davis Leeds Counselling, Director Karen Jessup LCC, Children’s Services, Education Psychologist Helen Welch (Rep Lisa Banton) LCC, Children’s Services Heather Ross LCC, Children’s Services, Intelligence Lead Attendance:
Arfan Hussain Leeds City Council, Governance & Partnership Administrator Apologies:
Jane Mischenko (Vice-Chair) CCG, NHS Lead Commissioner Lisa Banton LCC, Children’s Services, Practice Development & Partnership Lead Annie Mandelstam Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Clinical Advisor CAMHS Jim Hopkinson LCC, Children’s Services, Head of Service Targeted Services Simon Flowers 11-19 Learning Lead Jackie Claxton-Ruddock LCC, Children’s Services, Complex Needs Area Lead Jane Williams CCG Sally Dawson Market Place Andrea Richardson LCC, Children’s Services, Head of Early Help Service
74
2
Item Action 1.0 Welcome, introductions and apologies 1.1 Paul Bollom welcomed all colleagues to the meeting, introductions were given and apologies
were noted.
2.0 Minutes & matters arising from 21 October 2013 2.1 Members agreed the minutes as an accurate record of the meeting with the following
amendments and matters arising: • Item 2.1 – Paul Bollom informed members that Liz Neill, Young Lives Leeds, will be
able to support the group in specific areas through her involvement in areas such as Young Minds1.
• Item 2.1 – Dr. Helen Haywood to contact Steve Wood, Business representative on CTB, regarding an ICT system developed by IBM that may be considered for future use in relation to EH&WB.
• Item 3.1.7 – Annie Mandelstam has been included in the mailing list to receive minutes from the Self-Harm Working Group.
• Item 3.3.2 – Jane Mischenko has spoken to Steve Walker in relation to CAMHS. Further clarification is needed on if this related to skilling up the 13+ teams who support care leavers in E&MH.
• Item 4.1 – Amendments have been made to the terms of reference, which was accepted by the group. Representation from Children’s Social Work Service is being sought following comments at the previous meeting that it is necessary due to the overview they have over a range of services and areas relating to E&MH.
• Item 5.3.1 – Paul Bollom to continue to clarify if Andrea Richardson will be leading on the Best Start work strand and to provide an update at the next meeting.
JM
PB
PB
3.0 Feedback from related fora 3.1 Self-Harm Working Group
3.1.1 Ruth Gordon informed members that they are able to see the work plan of the Self-Harm Working Group through the CTB CAMHS Project Plan. It will focus on what can be done to support children & young people (CYP) to prevent self-harming, parents/carers of CYP who have concerns that they may be or are self-harming and other adults (e.g. professionals such as teachers and GPs).
3.1.2 Data shows that the number of high tariff instances of self-harm (e.g. severe & enduring, result of a mental illnesses, suicide attempt, etc.) have not increased significantly. For instance, this has been evidenced by a small increase in related A&E admissions. However, there has been an increase in the number of low tariff instances of self-harm (e.g. short term cutting), which can be a sign of distress and work is ongoing on how to support to CYP to help themselves,
1 http://www.youngminds.org.uk/
75
3
parents/carers and practitioners. The work plan includes developing a website utilising national resources and applying for funding through Jimbo’s Fund2 to develop a play to explore self-harm through drama. Self-Harm Working Group will also liaise with Jane Williams and Catherine Ward.
3.1.3 Joe Krasinski commented that the document ‘Self-Harm and Suicidal Behaviour: A Guide for staff working with children and young people in Leeds’3 requires a section differentiating between high and low tariff self-harm, but ensuring that the seriousness of low tariff self-harm is not underestimated. Ruth Gordon emphasised the importance of skilling practitioners in being able ask the right set of questions and have the confidence in their experience and knowledge on when to make a referral to the appropriate service. The website being considered could allow for pathways to be hosted.
RG
3.1.4 Catherine Ward stated there is a need to skill up front line staff in emotional health & wellbeing (EH&WB) and to have awareness training around self-harm. Members agreed for Ruth Gordon to contact Gill Parkinson and Sophie Bane in developing a One Minute Guide for self-harm.4 Paul Bollom commented that there is a need to develop an agreed shared understanding and consistency of approach across the city for self-harm.
RG
3.2 TaMHS Steering Group 3.2.1 Discussed under Item 6 & 7. 3.3 Multi Agency Looked After Partnership (MALAP)
3.3.1 No attendees from the previous MALAP meeting present to provide an update. 3.4 Complex Needs Partnership Board
3.4.1 No attendees from the previous Complex Needs Partnership Board meeting present to provide an update.
4.0 Priority Work Strands Members were provided with a project plan and detailed information on the priorities; Self-
Harm, Innovation & New Technologies and Whole System.
4.1 Self-Harm 4.1.1 Ruth Gordon gave an overview of Self Harm priority work strand. Paul Bollom commented the
need for greater understanding of data around self-harm with most officers believing that A&E admissions for self-harm have increased significantly when this is not the case. He highlighted the need for key messages to communicated to the wider partnership on what is known and unknown around self-harm. Ruth Gordon agreed that there is a need for greater understanding of data (e.g. implications of A&E admissions and A&E attendance).
4.1.2 Catherine Ward commented that data is needed beyond A&E given that CYP who self-harm would only attend A&E if there was an urgent need. Furthermore, although there are helplines in this area for adults, not yet exist for CYP.
2 http://www.leedscf.org.uk/jimbos-fund/ 3 http://www.leedslscb.org.uk/News/Self-harm-and-suicide-behaviour 4 One Minute Guides (OMGs) provide a brief overview on a variety of topics with the aim of developing the understanding of staff within Children Leeds partnership. For further information please contact [email protected] or [email protected]
76
4
4.2 Innovation & New Technologies 4.2.1 Ruth Gordon gave an overview of the Innovation & New Technologies priority work strand.
There will be meeting with CYP on 26 November 2013 to consult with them further on this priority. She highlighted that there currently exists a range of high quality resources for EH&WB and a key focus of the website will be to provide a coherent access point. Issues that have been identified are:
• Clinical governance from recommending a service through the website and the need to ensure that they are safe and of high quality.
• Ensuring the services detailed in the website are kept up to date given the number of resources available.
4.2.2 Members commented that innovation & new technologies can go further than a website, such as applications for mobile platforms, social media, etc. and ensuring communication methods favoured by CYP.
4.2.3 Members queried whether the site will act as an information portal or also provide help for CYP. Ruth Gordon commented that the website would primarily allow practitioners to be signposted to best treatment for CYP making explicit existing pathways, but can also provide information to CYP and adults/carers through existing resources.
4.2.4 Dr Helen Haywood recommended that Ruth Gordon liaises with the Communications team from the South & East CCG on the website.
RG
4.2.5 Members commented on the need for the website to also provide information on physical aspects EH&WB highlighting the significant impact of body image.
4.2.6 Joe Krasinki commented that such a website would be useful for clusters. Dr Helen Haywood commented on the need to ensure that duplication does not occur with the CCG’s Leeds Children's Commissioning Collaborative discussing the issue of appropriate referrals to appropriate services.
4.3 Whole System 4.3.1 Jon Davis gave an overview of the Whole System priority work strand. The offer is relatively ill-
defined within the city with the main sources of EH&WB support for young people not presented simply & succinctly. This has implications for parents and young people, and those working with them. It means they are more liable to either be referred inappropriately to Specialist CAMHS (40% of GP referrals to Specialist CAMHS are unsuitable), or risk being left without a service to access.
4.3.2 Routes directly into targeted services for EH&WB are not readily available in the public domain to parents and to many professionals, although access can be mediated formally through the Integrated Processes Team within LCC. There are no plans to make TSL details available for parents to self-refer directly, due to concerns about the capacity of TSLs to manage high call volume. But the Integrated Processes Team will accept referrals from GPs and professionals who are struggling to access targeted services.
4.3.3 Links are being formed with TSLs by some GP practices, but there is a slim likelihood of this being done of a systematic basis. GPs across the city do not yet have access to a consistent city-wide system which offers them up-to-date referral information into Targeted Services or CAMHS. At the same time, the process for bringing CCGs to the point where EHWB referral pathways are on their practice IT system is also unclear.
4.3.4 We also appear to be some way off having a single point of access phone number for triage and assessment of children & young people’s mental health.
4.3.5 Jon Davis stated that there is potential for defining an emerging message. It is important to differentiate the offer between school-based services and specialist CAMHS, while making
77
5
people aware of the Third & independent sector, of online resources, and of therapeutic support for adults.
4.3.6 Jon Davis provided an outline of how services are able to define their offer and access routes. Further work is needed on how this can be implemented and its relationship with the website proposed by Ruth Gordon. It has been established that:
• It is possible for parents/carers to access Targeted Services through their school by speaking to their child’s teacher or mentor.
• GPs should be encouraged parents to approach their school in the first instance, and if there is a barrier to contact the Integrated Processes Team.
• Criteria for specialist CAMHS is available through the LCH website with advice on what to do in cases of clinical urgency.5
• There are other sources of support such as charities, private therapists, self-help resources and support for parents from available from the NHS.
4.3.7 Joe Krasinski emphasised the importance of establishing a single point of access in order to be able to rationalise the offer for all stakeholders. Karen Jessup stated the need to ensure that level of support provided by Complex Needs through schools (which may develop into a support at a cluster level in the future) is reflected in any document detailing the offer.
4.3.8 Members commented that there are several aspects that require consideration: 4.3.8.1 Localisation of services. 4.3.8.2 TSL having a broad understanding of the wider offer. 4.3.8.3 Consultation with children & young people on their needs (e.g. an adult to talk to for mentoring
and support, a safe place to receive counselling outside of their normal settings, etc.). Catherine Ward highlighted to members the positive work occurring through Reach project with children & young people highlighting the importance of:
• Their issues being taken seriously • Having a space to talk • Confidential, which is not always available in schools
Children & young people can be powerful advocates of agency/ change in their setting for the better, which needs to be considered (e.g. work previously occurred by children & young people on the different levels of careers IAG available between schools and clearing stating their expectations when they felt a school was not meeting their needs).
4.3.8.4 Communicating the offer to children & young people. Members recommended Jon Davis to contact the Voice & Influence team to explore the possibility of developing a Child Friendly version of the offer for children & young people.6
JD
4.3.8.5 Communicating the offer to adults (parents/carers, practitioners, etc.). It is important to be able to express the benefits of a clear offer for all stakeholders (e.g. reduction in the referrals to CAMHS that are rejected before and after the offer is communicated). Furthermore, consider the use of language to highlight the level of investment in EH&WB across the partnership.
4.3.8.6 Ensuring clarity that the offer has citywide ownership (rather than being misinterpret it as an LCC offer) providing stakeholders with a reasonable expectation of what is available to them across the spectrum of EH&WB. This includes developing a greater understanding of the softer aspects of the offer (e.g. coaching models in some schools).
5 Further details can be accesses via: http://www.leedscommunityhealthcare.nhs.uk/what_we_do/children_and_family_services/camhs/professionals/referrals/ 6 For queries relating to the Voice & Influence team, Children’s Services, please contact [email protected]
78
6
4.3.8.7 Interrelation with a range of services. Karen Jessup stated that as part of the Children & Families Bill there is a requirement to develop and communicate a core offer and links to specialist and targeted services. This may need to be considered when developing an EH&WB offer.
Jo Davis commented that there is a risk that once an offer is published there will be a significant increase in referrals requiring capacity modelling and ensuring that practitioners are skilled up to be able to make appropriate referrals. Dr Helen Haywood emphasised the importance of communicating a consistent coherent citywide message with the offer.
4.3.9 Members agreed for Jon Davis to produce a document for the next meeting further developing the Whole System priority strand following the feedback received.
JD
5.0 Dashboard 5.1 Members were informed that the Growing Up in Leeds survey7, which provided a key
foundation for the development of a EH&WB offer, will not occur in its previous format for this academic year and it is unlikely that LCC will continue the survey in the future. Members commented on the importance of the survey stressing that it allowed for tracking of performance over a year on year through the consistency of questions.
5.1.1 Jon Davis commented that Leeds Counselling and other providers may be interested in carrying on the survey due its importance. Members agreed for the appropriate officer to contact Jon Davis on exploring this option.
JD
5.2 Paul Bollom stated that a range of performance data is already available to LCC around TAMHS, CAMHS, counselling services, contract management, etc., but there was a need to agree sharing of data from Health and other services and to consider what is needed to identify improvements for EH&WB across the city.
5.3 Ruth Gordon agreed to contact the appropriate officer to regularly provide A&E data through SUS (Secondary Uses Service).
RG
5.4 Joe Krasinski stated that he can provide the TaMHS evaluation output. However, there is an aim to agree with clusters to have access to their SDQ outcomes to gain an understanding of emotional health across the city, but this is dependent on capacity and cost.
5.5 Karen Jessup commented that it would be useful to have data on the number of children & young people who access CAMHS that are not otherwise engaged and the number of rejected referrals. Members agreed to approach Annie Mandelstam with this request.
AM
5.6 Karen Jessup stated that Complex Needs have data on children & young people with behavioural issues, but that this is not specifically recorded as EH&WB. However, it could be possible to get information from SENSAP around the number of statements and levels of funding to clusters. Data may be clearer in the future with Health Care plans requiring a section on emotional & social. Members agreed for Karen Jessup to explore what data can be provided by Complex Needs.
KJ
7 Growing up in Leeds survey is available to all schools in Leeds, to enable children and young people to tell us what it is like to grow up in Leeds. Questions cover all aspects of their lives, ranging from their health, their experiences of school, how they feel about where they live and what they want to do in the future. Annually, more than 7,000 pupils participated from schools.
79
7
5.7 Ruth Gordon commented that data on workforce development would be useful (e.g. number of practitioners who have received training in EH&WB).
5.8 Catherine Ward recommended data around Infant Mental Health and life course data. Members agreed to approach Jane Mischenko with this request.
JM
5.9 Joe Krasinski stated that there is a need to be able to answer the question of what the current state of mental health is in Leeds, which the dashboard will help with, and evidence progress.
5.10 Members agreed to develop a dashboard using an agreed template across the services for indicators where data is already collated. In order to achieve this members were requested to consider what indicators their service have that relate to emotional health & wellbeing and would have the capacity to input them into a dashboard template. These are to be based on the 3 questions in the OBA methodology
• How much did we do? • How well did we do it? • Is anyone better off?
Members will consider the indicators at the next meeting and agree which to prioritise. Following the agreement of the indicators, Performance will develop a dashboard template.
ALL
HR
6.0 Update on city wide EH&WB Provision Mapping 6.1 Document was circulated. JK
7.0 TaMHS Expansion Evaluation 2011-2013 7.1 Joe Krasinski provided an overview of the evaluation highlighting the continuing trend of the
service making a positive difference to the lives of children & young people with an improvement around mental health and other indicators.
7.2 There are growing concerns around the gap between TaMHS and meeting the criteria to be able to access CAMHS. This may cause issues in the future with the aim of TaMHS being an early intervention service when it is being accessed by children & young people with a higher level of need. Work is ongoing with Claire Humphries to analyse SDQ data (e.g. is TaMHS still making a difference for children & young people higher SDQs, SDQ levels of children & young people accessing TaMHS and CAMHS). Dr Helen Haywood commented that such findings would be useful and be able to positively impact commissioning for CCGs. Members agreed to receive an update at a future meeting following the next TAMHS steering group on 04 February 2014.
JK
8.0 Mental Health & Digital Innovations Conference 8.1 Ruth Gordon provided a brief overview of the conference highlighting new equipment allowing
for better identification of ADHD, which would result in the reduction of a visit in the referral pathway.
9.0 Any Other Business 9.1 Ruth Gordon informed members of the work that is occurring under Mindful.org and Cooth who
80
8
could provide online counselling. 9.2 Paul Bollom informed members of the Leeds Mindfulness Research Group.8 He stated that
members would be able to contact Dr Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Prof Louise Dyer over the possibility of using students to undertake research.
.
8 Further details can be accesses via: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/info/1318/leeds_mindfulness_research_group
81