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
1.
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
Items for discussion/view
2a. Budget Discussion (attached) – Neil Warren
BREAK
3.
9:45
10:45
11:00
23
2c. Joint Commissioning Priorities 2014/16 (attached) – Paul Bollom
11:50
41
12:10
49
Items for information
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)
Other Items
4a. Any other business
5.
17
2b. Developing our responses to vulnerable children under five (attached) –
Steve Walker/John Maynard
3a. CYPP Dashboard (attached)
4.
Page
Standing Items (Cllr Judith Blake)
1a. Welcome, Introductions, apologies and alternate representatives
2.
Time
Date of next meeting: Friday 7th March 2014, 9:30-12:30
Venue: West room, Civic Hall
61
12:20
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2
Leeds Children’s Trust Board
Item 1b
Minutes of the meeting held on 08 November 2013 at the Civic Hall
Present:
Nigel Richardson (Chair)
Cllr Roger Harington
Cllr Alan Lamb
Dr. Sharon Yellin
Bridget Emery
Jane Mischenko
Supt Keith Gilert
Bryan Gocke
Jim Hopkinson
Neil Moloney
Ann Pemberton
Dr. Helen Haywood
Steve Wood
Elaine Wylie
In attendance:
Andrea Richardson
Sue Ranger
Lisa Mincke
Andy Lloyd
Lisa Banton
Mark Wilton
Andy Peaden
Trevor Woodhouse
Steve Walker
Sue Rumbold
Rob Kenyon
Anne Little
Arfan Hussain
Sinead McGuinness
Sarah Hamid
Apologies:
Cllr Judith Blake
Cllr Sue Bentley
Cllr Jane Dowson
Alan Bolton
Dr. Ian Cameron
Martin Fleetwood
Alison France
Jane Held
Sam Prince
Chris Radelaar
Diane Reynard
Peter Roberts
Hilary Devitt
Paul Brennan
Sarah Sinclair
Leeds City Council, Director of Children’s Services
Leeds City Council, Elected Member
Leeds City Council, Elected Member
Leeds City Council, Public Health, Consultant in Public Health Medicine (for Dr. Ian Cameron)
Leeds City Council, Environment and Neighbourhoods, Chief Officer
Leeds Clinical Commissioning Groups, NHS Lead Commissioner (for Item 2a)
West Yorkshire Police, Chief Officer, Community Safety
Local Safeguarding Children Board – Business Manager (for Jane Held and Item 2c)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Targeted Services
West Yorkshire Probation, Head of Leeds Probation
Young Lives Leeds, Manager, Home Start Leeds
Leeds Clinical Commissioning Groups, Associate Clinical Director
Business Representative
NHS England, West Yorkshire Area Team, Director of Operations and Delivery
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Early Help Services (for Item 2a)
Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Infant Mental Health, Consultant Clinical Psychologist (for Item 2a)
Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Family Nurse Partnership Leeds, Supervisor (for Item 2a)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Services Children's Workforce Development (for Item 2b)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Practice Development and Partnership Training Lead (for Item 2b)
Leeds City Council, Relationship Manager (for Item 2d)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Head of Youth Offending Service (for Item 2e)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Youth Offending Service, Youth Justice Officer (for Item 2e)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Deputy Director (for Item 2f)
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Chief Officer (for Item 4a)
Leeds City Council, Adult Social Care, Chief Officer Health Partnerships
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Governance & Partnership
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Secretary
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Secretary
Leeds City Council, Children's Services, School Leaver
Leeds City Council, Executive Lead Member for Children’s Services
Leeds City Council, Elected Member
Leeds City Council, Elected Member
David Young Community Academy, Assistant Principal
Leeds City Council, Director of Public Health (Rep Sharon Yellin)
Temple Moor High School, Principal
Jobcentre Plus
Local Safeguarding Children Board – Independent Chair (Rep Bryan Gocke)
Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Children’s Centre Manager – Shepherd’s Lane Children’s Centre
SILC Principals, East SILC
Leeds City College, Chief Executive
West CCG, GP Clinical Lead for Children
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Deputy Director
Leeds City Council, Children’s Services, Chief Officer
1
3
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 zones 1, 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
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-carereform--2
1
2
4
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 £9/14 4. 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
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-PartnershipProgramme-Information-leaflet.pdf.
3
3
5
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
2.1.8
2.1.9
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
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
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
'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_ac
cessible.pdf
6
4
6
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.
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.
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.
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
Andy
Lloyd
Andy
Lloyd
Andy
Lloyd
5
7
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.
Members agreed the recommendations of the report and for the challenges set by the LSCB to
2.3.2
7
Anne
LSCB Annual Report (2012/13) can be viewed via http://www.leedslscb.org.uk/professionals/annual-report.shtml.
6
8
Little
be incorporated into the board’s work programme.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Members emphasised the need for greater clarity on the levels of request for support and offers
that can be placed on the network.
Members agreed the recommendations of the report and the chair thanked Matt Wilton for his
presentation.
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.5
Anne
Little
Matt
Wilton
Matt
Wilton
ALL
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/.
7
9
pilot.
2.5.2
2.5.3
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.
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).
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.
AP
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.
8
10
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.
2.5.8
The chair thanked Andy Peaden and Trevor Woodhouse for the report.
2.6
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
Sufficiency Strategy
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.
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.
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
4.0
SW, JH,
AP & BE
The board received and noted the contents of the CTB CAMHS Task & Finish Group and
MALAP minutes.
Other Items
9
11
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:
4.1.3
5.0
•
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
SR
Members agreed to receive a further update at a future meeting.
Date and time of next meeting:
Monday 09 December 2013, 18:00-20:00, Civic Hall
10
12
Item 1c
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.
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
Item 2a
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,
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.
110
Number of Looked After Childre
10,000)
100
90
80
Leeds
88 CL
70
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
2014/15
2014/15
Is this
relevant to
Equality &
Diversity
£m
FTEs
Y/N
Pressures/Savings
Budget Pressures:
Inflation
Pay
Price
Income
1.35
1.09
(0.37)
0.00
0.00
0.00
N
N
N
Full Year Effects of previous decisions
(0.45)
0.00
N
0.12
0.00
N
Home to school transport
1.07
0.00
N
Direct Payments
0.12
0.00
N
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
3.92
15.10
Y
2.03
18.43
N
18.20
33.53
Procurement
(0.68)
0.00
N
Building a child friendly city - Looked After Children
Reduced reliance on externally provided residential and fostering placements
(5.77)
0.00
Y
(1.76)
(49.71)
Y
Review of provision at the City Learning Centres
Expansion of the Multi-systemic Therapy Capacity
Demand/Demography
Other
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
Multi-systemic therapy licencing, social work capacity, investment in Leeds Learning Network
and Infobase, Workforce Development and Restorative Practice
Total Pressures
Savings Proposals:
Becoming an efficient and enterprising Council:
Support Services - Organisational Development, Business Management Review and
additional Vacancy Management savings
Income, charging and trading
Nursery Fees - £3/day increase (8.33%)
(0.22)
0.00
Y
Additional traded income/cost reductions
(0.85)
(4.17)
Y
(0.77)
0.00
N
Public Health
Public Health Funding
Other efficiencies/savings proposals
Review 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
Y
(0.39)
(4.85)
Y
Education/Activity Centres - Armley LAZER centre, Herd Farm, Lineham Farm, South Leeds
Hub
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
(22.30)
(187.56)
(4.10)
(154.03)
Total Savings
Overall net cost / (saving)
21
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
22
Item 2b
Leeds Children’s Trust Board
Date of
meeting:
17th January 2014
Author:
Tel No:
Email:
Report title:
Steve Walker
[email protected]
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
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:
2011/12
Starting
care
Under 1
1 to 4
0-4
10 to 15
16 and
over
Leeds
160
97
257
74
38.1%
23.1%
61.2%
17.6%
18
4.3%
2012/13
Leeds dif
Leeds dif
National to
Leeds
National to
national
national
21%
17.1 136 36.3%
21%
15.3
20%
3.1 94 25.1%
20%
5.1
41%
20.2 230 61.4%
41%
20.4
30%
-12.4 73 19.5%
29%
-9.5
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
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 (Jan -June)
0
14%
22%
26%
25%
33%
44%
1-4
20%
21%
23%
27%
24%
21%
5-9
17%
16%
17%
16%
18%
15%
(Source: Turn the Curve Strategy Group Data Analysis)
10-14
27%
21%
20%
21%
16%
14%
15+
22%
20%
14%
11%
10%
7%
Grand Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
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
number entering care
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
Aged under 1
110
110
165
136
Aged 1-4
115
100
95
94
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
% of those entering care
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
Aged under 1
2011
2012
2013
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
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
Item 2c
Leeds Children’s Trust Board
Date of
meeting:
17th January 2014
Author:
Tel No:
Email:
Report title:
Paul Bollom
0113 2243952
[email protected]
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.
1
41
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
2
42
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:
3
43
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.3
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 .
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:
4
44
•
•
•
3.5
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.
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.
5
45
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).
6
46
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
7
47
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
8
48
Children and Young People's Plan cluster performance - November 2013
Contents
1. Leeds
2. Cluster - obsessions
3. Cluster - all indicators
4. Cluster definitions
5. Indicator definitions
Print dashboard
City level data for all indicators
Cluster level data for obsessions showing direction of travel
Cluster level data for all indicators where this is available
Clusters by area and acronym explanations
Data source and calculation method
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.
Not all indicators can be reported at cluster level. This currently applies to the following indicators:
• 16-18 year olds starting apprenticeships: data-set owned by the National Apprenticeship Service and unavailable below city level
• 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
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.
New versions of this spreadsheet are issued monthly. Data in this edition of the dashboard relates to the end of November 2013.
Version number:
Date produced:
Created by:
Contact details:
Status:
Filepath:
Protective marking:
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
V1
23 December 2013
Becky Lawrence
[email protected]
Final
U:\CHILDRENS PERFORMANCE SERVICES\Products\Dashboards\CYPP
Not protectively marked
1
49
Children and Young People's Plan Key Indicator Dashboard - City level: November 2013
National
Stat
neighbour
Result for
same period
last year
Result
Aug 2013
Result
Sep 2013
Result
Oct 2013
Result
Nov 2013
RAG
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
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
Safe from
harm
Measure
3a. Primary attendance
Do well in learning and have the skills for life
3b. Secondary attendance
3c. SILC attendance (cross-phase)
Healthy lifestyles
Snapshot
R
30/11/13
Snapshot
95.3%
(HT1-4 2013 AY)
A
▼
HT1-4
AY to date
R
▼
HT1-4
AY to date
R
▲
HT1-4
AY to date
(HT1-4 2013 AY)
(HT1-4 2012 AY)
93.8%
93.7%
(HT1-4 2013 AY)
90.4%
91.1%
85.9%
87.5%
94.1%
30/11/13
95.8%
(HT1-4 2012 AY)
(HT1-4 2013 AY)
94.2%
R
(HT1-4 2012 AY)
(HT1-4 2012 AY)
(HT1-5 2011 AY)
5.3%
(Oct 13)
6.3%
(Oct 13)
(Nov 12 - 1353)
R
▼
30/11/13
1 month
5.Early Years Foundation Stage good level
of development
52%
(2013 AY)
48%
(2013 AY)
63%
(2012 AY)
51%
(2013 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)
74%
(2013 AY - 5563)
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)
56.6%
(2013 AY - provisional)
R
▲
Oct 13 SFR
AY
8. Level 3 qualifications at 19
55.0%
(2012 AY)
53.8%
(2012 AY)
50%
(2011 AY)
50%
(4,189)
A
►
Apr 13 SFR
AY
90,939
576
1,716
(Aug 11 - Apr 12)
1,149
(Aug 12 - Apr 13)
N/A
▼
Jul 13 SFR
Cumulative
Aug - July
4. NEET
5.9%
7.8%
(1744)
7.7%
(1639)
6.4%
(1397)
6.4%
(1427)
(Aug 12- Apr 13)
(Aug 12- Apr 13)
Local
indicator
Local
indicator
1732
1261
N/A
▼
Apr-12
FY
11. Obesity levels at year 6
18.9%
(2013 AY)
19.4%
(2013 AY)
19.7%
(2011 AY)
19.6%
(2013 AY)
A
▲
Dec 13 SFR
AY
12. Teenage conceptions (rate per 1000)
26.0
(Sep 2012)
33.7
(Sep 2012)
35.0
(Sep 2011)
31.4
(Sep 2012)
A
▲
Nov-13
Quarter
13a. Uptake of free school meals - primary
79.8%
(2011 FY)
79%
(Yorks & H)
77.6%
(2011/12 FY)
73.1%
(2012/13 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)
71.1%
(2012/13 FY)
A
►
Oct-13
FY
14. Alcohol-related hospital admissions for
under-18s
Local
indicator
Local
indicator
69
57
N/A
▼
2012
Calendar
year
15. Children who agree that they enjoy
their life
Local
indicator
Local
indicator
80%
(2012 AY)
80%
(2013 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)
1.0%
(2012/13)
N/A
▲
Apr-13
FY
17a. Children and young people's
influence in school
Local
indicator
Local
indicator
68%
(2012 AY)
69%
(2013 AY)
N/A
▲
Nov-13
AY
17b. Children and young people's
influence in the community
Local
indicator
Local
indicator
52%
(2012 AY)
50%
(2013 AY)
N/A
▼
Nov-13
AY
10. Disabled children and young people
accessing short breaks
Fun
95.2%
(HT1-4 2013 AY)
Timespan
covered by
month result
(HT1-4 2012 AY)
9. 16-18 year olds starting apprenticeships
Voice and influence
95.2%
(HT1-4 2013 AY)
Data last
updated
DOT
Notes
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.
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 RAGrating 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.
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)
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
Comparative national data for academic attainment indicators are the result for all state-maintained schools
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
1
50
Monthly obsessions tracker by cluster
Month: November 2013
Select cluster from drop-down box below:
ACES
Obsession
Latest position
Safely reduce the number of children
looked after (data from October 2013)
Reduce the number of young people
not in employment, education or
training (unadjusted NEET)
Reduce school absence: primary
76
57
4.2%
Change since
last month
1
2


N/A
% change since
CYPP start
19%
-40%


N/A
Change since
CYPP start
12
-38
-1.6



Progress since CYPP start
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
HT1-5 2009/10
HT1-5 2010/11
HT1-5 2011/12
HT1-5 2010/11
HT1-5 2011/12
13.0
12.5
12.0
Reduce school absence: secondary
10.8%
N/A
N/A
-1.9

11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.5
HT1-5 2009/10
Notes
1 - 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 annually
3 - 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.
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
51
Children and Young People's Plan Key Indicator Dashboard - Cluster level: November 2013
Children
3
looked after
Early Years
Child
Foundation
Primary
Secondary
Adjusted
protection
attendance4 attendance4 NEET 3 4 5 8
Stage 4
plans 3 5 6
Time period covered
2013 AY
As at 31/10/13 As at 31/10/13 HT1-4 12/13 HT1-4 12/13 As at 30/11/13
51%
Leeds
1352
795
95.3%
93.7%
6.4%
No. RPTT
No. RPTT
%
Cluster
No.
2
30
4.9
ENE - Alwoodley
14
25.0
8
14.3
95.8%
95.2%
64%
84
9.0
ENE - C.H.E.S.S.1
102 135.0
33
43.7
93.2%
N/A
31%
2
19
2.7
ENE - EPOSS
6
8.3
7
9.7
96.2%
93.2%
65%
ENE - Inner East
219 190.1
67
58.2
94.4%
92.1%
45%
150
10.1
ENE - N.E.X.T.
18
22.8
<5
95.8%
94.7%
59%
38
3.4
ENE - NEtWORKS
27
47.5
33
58.0
95.3%
93.9%
64%
38
4.9
ENE - Seacroft Manston
100 101.8
93
94.6
94.5%
91.1%
45%
149
9.6
SSE - Ardsley & Tingley
10
29.0
<5
95.8%
94.3%
16
2.9
57%
SSE - Beeston, Cottingley and Middleton
90 113.4
49
61.7
95.1%
94.5%
39%
88
8.0
SSE - Brigshaw
18
36.4
16
32.3
95.6%
94.6%
62%
37
4.7
SSE - Garforth
<5
6
16.6
96.0%
96.3%
52%
15
2.5
SSE - J.E.S.S
216 212.6
130 127.9
94.6%
90.6%
35%
127
10.1
SSE - Morley
40
46.8
37
43.3
95.4%
94.7%
54%
55
4.6
SSE - Rothwell
22
34.9
16
25.4
95.5%
92.9%
63%
42
5.3
SSE - Templenewsam Halton
38
67.6
18
32.0
95.4%
93.5%
45%
61
6.8
WNW - ACES
76 151.9
29
58.0
95.3%
89.0%
37%
60
8.3
WNW - Aireborough
13
18.1
<5
96.2%
94.7%
65%
34
3.5
WNW - Bramley
92 122.5
55
73.3
95.1%
93.5%
36%
101
9.2
WNW - ESNW
15
30.2
13
26.2
95.3%
92.5%
55%
21
3.0
WNW - Farnley
24
63.8
20
53.1
95.2%
94.1%
53%
63
11.1
WNW - Horsforth
14
37.4
5
13.3
96.6%
95.1%
54%
17
3.1
WNW - Inner NW Hub
50
77.3
46
71.1
95.1%
94.3%
62%
56
6.6
WNW - OPEN XS
52 165.3
32 101.7
94.2%
90.6%
54%
35
9.8
WNW - Otley/Pool/Bramhope
7
16.9
14
33.8
96.0%
95.0%
65%
13
2.2
WNW - Pudsey
30
30.9
36
37.0
95.5%
92.8%
56%
67
4.8
Key: AY - academic year FSM - free school meals FY - financial year RPT - rate per thousand RPTT - rate per ten thousand
56
Key Stage 2
Level 4+ in
5 A*-C
Level 3
reading,
GCSEs inc
quals at age
writing and
Eng and
19 5 7
Maths 4
maths 4
2013 AY
2012 AY
2012 AY
74%
55.0%
50.0%
85%
59%
87%
64%
77%
66%
73%
84%
74%
78%
75%
64%
80%
74%
72%
72%
82%
63%
77%
78%
85%
76%
63%
84%
79%
59%
N/A
60%
34%
58%
33%
44%
68%
57%
59%
74%
33%
53%
54%
59%
28%
70%
57%
47%
57%
63%
58%
25%
73%
62%
63.5%
42.6%
59.3%
39.0%
69.8%
56.9%
40.6%
65.0%
39.4%
53.8%
61.6%
31.0%
45.5%
44.8%
48.4%
33.2%
69.1%
36.7%
57.1%
39.1%
67.9%
57.6%
41.7%
64.8%
52.2%
Obesity
levels at
Year 6 5
2011/12 AY
19.9%
Primary
uptake of
FSM 4
2012/13 FY
73.1%
14.9%
20.9%
13.9%
22.4%
19.2%
20.5%
22.7%
14.3%
24.4%
20.2%
16.8%
24.4%
16.0%
19.8%
18.1%
21.2%
17.9%
21.8%
19.7%
20.8%
13.4%
22.0%
32.2%
16.5%
18.4%
68.3%
72.3%
62.0%
76.6%
61.6%
73.4%
72.6%
70.0%
73.3%
72.2%
68.4%
77.5%
69.4%
68.8%
70.4%
78.5%
72.0%
71.3%
71.9%
70.9%
71.8%
75.7%
79.6%
77.8%
66.6%
Alcoholrelated
hospital
Teenage
Secondary admissions
uptake of
for under- conceptions 5 10-17 yr old
6
FSM 4
18s 5 6
offenders 5 6
2012/13 FY
2012
06/09-06/10 07/12-06/13
71.1%
57
44.4
1.1%
No.
RPT
No.
RPT
72.4%
<5
24
29.3
13
5.4
unavailable
6
48
46.4
43
14.3
59.4%
<5
22
14.0
7
2.1
75.0%
<5
111
74.2
69
16.0
74.0%
<5
25
18.7
16
4.8
70.5%
26
28.6
22
9.8
69.9%
6
99
54.6
51
12.2
71.8%
<5
25
36.9
10
6.1
53.6%
<5
83
68.3
36
11.6
63.6%
6
32
36.2
7
3.2
69.3%
22
30.5
<5
unavailable
5
106
71.9
64
17.3
63.8%
<5
52
38.0
23
6.5
73.3%
<5
33
30.6
18
6.9
59.5%
<5
66
65.9
19
7.7
65.8%
<5
44
56.6
33
17.2
55.6%
<5
28
22.5
<5
79.1%
<5
98
80.1
37
12.0
67.5%
<5
26
29.4
10
4.6
76.9%
35
52.0
14
9.4
unavailable
19
33.0
7
4.5
64.9%
<5
42
38.1
38
14.7
85.1%
20
44.3
20
19.6
unavailable
13
16.0
12
6.3
unavailable
<5
46
29.9
18
4.5
Notes
1 - C.H.E.S.S. cluster does not include any secondary schools.
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.
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.
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 cluster
6 - 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.
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
1
52
Some clusters cross over area boundaries. Where this is the case, they are listed under more than
one area.
East North East area
West North West area
South area
Alwoodley
Aireborough
Ardsley and Tingley
CHESS (Chapeltown and
Harehills extended support
services)
Beeston, Cottingley and
ACES (Armley cluster extended
Middleton
services)
EPOSS (Elmete partnership of
schools and services)
Bramley
Inner East
N.E.X.T. (North East Extended
Together: Moortown and
Roundhay)
Brigshaw
ESNW (Extended services north
west: Weetwood, Adel and
Garforth
Wharfdale)
JESS (Joint extended schools
Farnley
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
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
1
53
For all indicators, data is suppressed for instances of 5 or fewer young people in a cluster.
Number of children looked after - OBSESSION INDICATOR
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.
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.
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.
The result includes unaccompanied asylum seekers.
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.
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.
Number of children subject to child protection plans
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.
Allocations to cluster are by the child’s current address at the date when the report was run.
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.
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
1
54
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.
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.
Primary and secondary attendance rate - 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.
Cluster performance is based on which cluster a school belongs to, not the home address of pupils who live in the cluster.
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.
NEET - OBSESSION INDICATOR
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.
Allocation to cluster is by the young person's home postcode.
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
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
2
55
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.
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.
Foundation Stage good level of development
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.
Key Stage 2 level 4+ English and maths
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/
5+ A*-C GCSE inc English and maths
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/
Level 3 qualifications at 19
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.
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%
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
3
56
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%
Combinations of qualifications are allowed where their parts add up to 100% for that level.
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.
National data comparisons are for pupils who were in the state sector at academic age 15, not all England.
16-18 year olds starting apprenticeships
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.
Disabled children and young people accessing short breaks
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.
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.
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.
Obesity levels at year 6
Allocation to cluster is by the child's home postcode.
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
4
57
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:
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/health-and-lifestyles/obesity/national-child-measurement-programme-england-2010-11-school-year
The 2009/10 report for Leeds can be downloaded at:
http://www.leeds.nhs.uk/Downloads/Public%20Health/Childrens%20Health/NCMP%20report%2009%20to10%20FINAL.pdf
This is a sample indicator, so it is not possible to say how many children this equates to.
Teenage conception
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
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.
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.
Uptake of free school meals - primary and secondary
Allocation to cluster is by school, not by pupil home postcode.
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.
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.
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.
Under 18 alcohol-related hospital admissions
The data source for this is hospital admissions data, based on date of discharge. Allocation to cluster is by a young person's home postcode.
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
5
58
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.
Children who agree that they enjoy their life
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.'
% of 10 to 17 year-olds committing one or more offence
Allocation to cluster is by home postcode of the young person. The 10-17 cluster population is calculated using GP registration data.
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.
Children and young people's influence in school and in the community
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 questions that relate to this indicator are:
• 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?
• 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?
The result is the percentage of respondents who answer either ‘A great deal’ or ‘A fair amount.’
Produced by: Children's Performance Service
6
59
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
60
Multi Agency Looked After Partnership
Minutes of Meeting 19th November 2013
9.00am 11.00am
Boardroom, 10th Floor West, Merrion House
Item 3b
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
Minutes of last meeting
ACTIONS
1.1
The minutes of the meeting of 24.09.2013 were agreed as an accurate record.
1.2
Matters arising:
1.2.1
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.
1.2.2
Item 1.2.5: Placement Plans - DR is now attending the CSDMs meeting.
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.
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.
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
-1-
ST
RM / ARi / DR
SMcG
61
-
-
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.
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.
-2-
LM
LM
62
-
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.
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
-3-
DR / SJ
63
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.
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.
12.0
AOB
-4-
RM
All members
64
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.
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.
13.0
Date and time of next meeting:
Tuesday 11th November, 9.00am – 11.00am
Boardroom, 10th Floor West, Merrion House
-5-
CJ / AB
All members
65
CTB Workforce Reform & Practice Development Sub Group
Minutes of 25 November 2013 at Boardroom, 1st Floor East, Merrion House
Present:
Sue Rumbold
Andy Lloyd
Gail Palmer-Smeaton
Ann Pemberton
Jeannette Morris-Boam
Professor Nick Frost
Jim Hopkinson
Raminder Aujla
Natalie Samuel
Chief Officer for Partnership Development and Business Support
Children’s Services, Head of Workforce Development
Headteacher, Partner Head
Young Lives Leeds, Manager, Home Start Leeds
Young Lives Leeds, Co-ordinator
Leeds Metropolitan University
Children’s Services, Head of Targeted Services
ISU, Education and Early Start Safeguarding Team Manager
Children’s Services, Complex Needs Service, Best Practice Development
Attendance:
Arfan Hussain
Rebecca McCormack
Kirsty Haynes
Leeds City Council, Governance & Partnership Administrator
Leeds City Council, Parenting Unit Manager
Leeds City Council, HR Business Partner
Apologies:
Sam Prince
Karen Shinn
Jenny Roussounis
Elaine McShane
Diane Reynard
Lisa Banton
Debbie Addlestone
Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
LSCB Assistant Manager
LSCB Training & Development Officer
Children’s Services, Children’s Social Work Service, WNW Head of Children’s Social
Work Service
Headteacher East SILC/ Executive Principle South SILC
Children’s Services, Workforce Development Lead
West Yorkshire Probabtion
1
66
Item
Action
1.0
Standing Items
1.1
Welcome, introductions and apologies
1.1.1
1.2
Sue Rumbold welcomed all colleagues to the meeting and apologies were noted.
Minutes and matters arising from 21 October 2013
1.2.1
1.2.4
The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting with the following matters
arising:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Item 2.1 – Sue Rumbold to liaise with Sam Prince in securing a Health representative.
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.
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
1.2.2
1.2.2.1
1.2.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.3.1
1.2.3.2
1.2.3.3
1.2.3.4
1.2.7
1
AL
AL/
ALL
JH
SR
http://doinggoodleeds.org.uk/
2
67
1.2.8
1.2.8.1
1.2.8.2
1.2.9
1.3
1.3.1
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Restorative Practice Update
AL
AL
KH
LB
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
3
68
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.
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
LB,
KS &
RA
Children’s Commissioner reports can be accessed via http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications
4
69
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.
2.2
RM &
LB
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
5
70
moving from the Children Leeds website to Leeds City Council. This will consist of:
2.2.4
2.3
•
Nicky Mamwell
•
Anne Pemberton
•
Karen Shinn/ Lucy Chadwick
•
Lisa Banton
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.
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.
6
71
•
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.
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.
2.3.12
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
AL
7
72
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
.
8
73
CTB CAMHS Task & Finish Group
Minutes of 25 November 2013 at Boardroom, 1st Floor East, Merrion House
Present:
Paul Bollom (Chair)
Ruth Gordon
Joe Krasinski
Catherine Ward
Dr Helen Haywood
Jon Davis
Karen Jessup
Helen Welch (Rep Lisa Banton)
Heather Ross
LCC, Children’s Services, Head of Service Commissioning & Market Management
CCG, Project Manager
LCC, Children’s Services, TaMHS Project Manager
LCC, Adult Social Care
CCG, GP Lead for South & East
Leeds Counselling, Director
LCC, Children’s Services, Education Psychologist
LCC, Children’s Services
LCC, Children’s Services, Intelligence Lead
Attendance:
Arfan Hussain
Leeds City Council, Governance & Partnership Administrator
Apologies:
Jane Mischenko (Vice-Chair)
Lisa Banton
Annie Mandelstam
Jim Hopkinson
Simon Flowers
Jackie Claxton-Ruddock
Jane Williams
Sally Dawson
Andrea Richardson
CCG, NHS Lead Commissioner
LCC, Children’s Services, Practice Development & Partnership Lead
Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Clinical Advisor CAMHS
LCC, Children’s Services, Head of Service Targeted Services
11-19 Learning Lead
LCC, Children’s Services, Complex Needs Area Lead
CCG
Market Place
LCC, Children’s Services, Head of Early Help Service
1
74
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.
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
JM
PB
PB
http://www.youngminds.org.uk/
2
75
parents/carers and practitioners. The work plan includes developing a website utilising national
resources and applying for funding through Jimbo’s Fund 2 to develop a play to explore selfharm 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.
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.
3.2
3.2.1
3.3
3.3.1
3.4
3.4.1
Discussed under Item 6 & 7.
Multi Agency Looked After Partnership (MALAP)
No attendees from the previous MALAP meeting present to provide an update.
Complex Needs Partnership Board
No attendees from the previous Complex Needs Partnership Board meeting present to provide
an update.
Priority Work Strands
4.1
Members were provided with a project plan and detailed information on the priorities; SelfHarm, Innovation & New Technologies and Whole System.
Self-Harm
4.1.2
RG
TaMHS Steering Group
4.0
4.1.1
RG
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).
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.
http://www.leedscf.org.uk/jimbos-fund/
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]
2
3
3
76
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
Innovation & New Technologies
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.
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.
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.
Dr Helen Haywood recommended that Ruth Gordon liaises with the Communications team
from the South & East CCG on the website.
Members commented on the need for the website to also provide information on physical
aspects EH&WB highlighting the significant impact of body image.
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.
Whole System
RG
Jon Davis gave an overview of the Whole System priority work strand. The offer is relatively illdefined 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
4
77
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.3.8
people aware of the Third & independent sector, of online resources, and of therapeutic
support for adults.
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.
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.
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
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).
JD
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]
5
5
78
4.3.8.7
4.3.9
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.
Members agreed for Jon Davis to produce a document for the next meeting further developing
the Whole System priority strand following the feedback received.
5.0
Dashboard
5.1
Members were informed that the Growing Up in Leeds survey 7, 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.
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).
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.
5.6
JD
JD
RG
AM
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
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.
7
6
79
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.
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?
JM
ALL
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.
6.0
Update on city wide EH&WB Provision Mapping
6.1
Document was circulated.
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.
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
HR
JK
JK
7
80
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
8
81