Agenda item

The Cabinet member with responsibility for Children and Families introduced the report, explaining that there needed to be a shift to prevention rather than cure with the objective being to increase life chances for vulnerable young people in a secure family environment.

After considering the professional advice and being challenged by Essex, (the Council's Improvement Partner) as to why there were so many children in residential homes, the Council had decided to adopt North Yorkshire's No Wrong Door system. Ofsted had said Worcestershire's Edge of Care system was underdeveloped and although improvement had been sustained it was still not good enough.

The proposal to concentrate on Edge of Care Services and the proposed closure of six out of twelve children's homes would result in a saving of £0.5 - £1.2 million but that would not mean less would be spent on Children's services as it would be spent in other ways. The report was requesting an agreement in principle for consultation to begin.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were made:

·       The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills endorsed the approach being taken and acknowledged the contributions from care leavers but pointed out that the aim was doing what was best for the child and by providing families with more support, more children would be able to stay in a home environment. There would always be a need for a safety net and not all the children's homes would be closed, however they did not want to keep homes open and fill places and perpetuate demand regardless of need. The aim was not to save money but to have more young people in loving homes

·       The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure pointed out that the report stated that 3 in 10 children in England lived in poverty but he felt caution should be applied to using such terms. He clarified that the home in Tenbury had never actually opened

·       The ambition of not having any children homes was a correct one

·       A Member from outside the Cabinet supported improving prevention but felt it did not match the Council's actions of cutting funding to lots of prevention services in the past. He felt that it may take a long time for prevention measures to work. He hoped that the children who were affected could stay reasonably local to their families

·       A Member from outside the Cabinet said that most local people agreed that it was sensible to close Downsell road as it was currently closed and there would be a cost involved in bringing it up to standard, however he would like to know what had happened to the staff who had previously worked at Downsell Road

·       Members felt that although it was good to concentrate on the Edge of Care Service they were concerned at the speed of change and queried whether it would be better to close three homes initially rather than six, or wait until the young people in the homes were at an age when they were ready to move out

·       A Member hoped that the commitment to ensure that young people would only be moved from homes at a time which was appropriate to them, would be honoured. She understood that a number of the young people were approaching being ready to move on anyway and the Council should be proud of the staff who did such good work at the residential homes

·       There was concern that what worked well for Essex may not be the best thing for Worcestershire, but it was pointed out that North Yorkshire, whose No Wrong Door policy would be followed, was more similar to Worcestershire

·       There was always likely to be a need for some sort of specialist care and although that could be bought in there was a concern that it would not be as good as the care provided by the Council

·       The Cabinet Member with responsibility responded that there was no timescale to the plan yet; they were seeking agreement in principle and a following report would provide a timescale. The plan was not about money but for every £1 spent on prevention £4 would be saved at a later date. They were not following a finance based model but rather one which put the child first.  In response to the query over timing of the closures, the Cabinet Member did not support the idea of 'running down' each home, but numbers had already reduced so that 13 Children were now in residential homes rather than the original 19 and the Cabinet Member had been assured that each young person would be considered individually. Early help was needed, especially as funding for Troubled Families was ending next year and the Council needed to consider if and how it should lobby for continued funding. Policies which had been introduced in the past had led the Council in the wrong direction but that was now being changed

·       The evidence showed that edge of care was the right policy to follow. Rather than saving money more would be spent on children and the interests of vulnerable children were being put first.

RESOLVED that Cabinet:

(a)   noted the context around children at the edge of and moving into Local Authority care and the current mix of service provision in Worcestershire;

(b)  agreed the development of an Edge of Care Outreach Service to support children to live at home with their families where it was safe do so;

(c)   approved in principle the revised approach to in-house children's homes as set out in the report;

(d)  approved the consultation process with children, young people and families and stakeholders in relation to the revised approach to children's homes, and authorised the Director of Children, Families and Communities to finalise the consultation documentation and undertake such consultation;

(e)   approved engagement with children, young people and families and stakeholders to inform the new model of the Edge of Care outreach Service; and

(f)    delegated decision-making in relation to the proposals for specific children's homes to the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families, having regard to the outcome of that consultation.