Agenda item

Report by the Executive Director People Services.

Following the withdrawal of operation at 3 of 6 of the council’s in-house residential care establishments due to concerns about the quality of service, a wider residential care services review is taking place. The review is identifying the overall needs of children for whom the county council is expecting to provide support, and consider what form of residential support best meets those needs. The strategy will propose a strategic framework and service model which seeks to ensure that outcomes for vulnerable children are maximised and that long-term care costs are minimised. It will support the most vulnerable children in the county by keeping them close to home and providing services designed to support both them and their families.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People will be asked to approve the residential care strategy and endorse the implementation plan and investment required as part of the overall improvement journey for Children’s Services.

32.1   The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director People Services. The report was introduced by Kim Curry, Executive Director People Services who took the Committee through a presentation to highlight the key themes. A summary of these included:

·       The residential improvement board was set up in September 2018 in response to the closure of Seaside children’s home. On reflection, the residential service has come a long way in the last year.

·       A measured strategic framework was developed which focussed on four key areas of work:

Ø  In-house services – supporting complex and vulnerable children on the edge of care

Ø  Best outcomes for children – keeping children at home, or as near to home as possible where safe and appropriate to do so

Ø  Flexible approach – ability to respond to a wide range of needs

Ø  Opportunities to be innovative – develop a wrap-around service.

·       The strategy aims to keep children in West Sussex avoiding out of county and private high cost placements.

·       The proposed changes at phase 1 impacted Seaside, May House and Cissbury Lodge, which were currently closed. The remaining homes: Teasel Close, High Trees and Orchard House were currently operational and rated good or better by Ofsted.

·       A focus on staff and culture would be central to the in-house residential strategy, learning from previous experiences. Training, development and management oversight were key to foster the right culture and environment.

·       Seaside, May House and Cissbury Lodge would hopefully be reopened at the end of 2020. At this point, feasibility work at Teasel Close, High Trees and Orchard House would commence as phase 2.

·       Through the closure of Cissbury Lodge there had been a loss of long-term bed space. A bridging amount of £2m was required due to sourcing placements elsewhere during this period of closure, plus additional expenditure in staffing and training. Through cost avoidance models the service was confident that net changes in cost to the council would be neutral.

32.2   A summary of members questions and their responses were as follows:

·       The Committee were interested to learn how the service was changing its approach to recruitment, particularly in view of the difficulties in recruiting Registered Managers. Jackie Wood, Assistant Director Corporate Parenting, advised a new recruitment campaign for Registered Managers had been established, and the development of the residential estate offered scope for career progression. Positive feedback had been received from engagement events.

·       Members of the Committee asked when the new Registered Managers would be in post. The Assistant Director advised some were in place already, interviews were taking place in October and successful candidates would be in post before the end of the year, allowing them 12 months with the authority before the homes reopened.

·       The Committee considered how WSCC monitored the care provided by private or out of county placements. Stuart Gibbons, Strategic Market Development Manager, advised Regulation 44 visits were undertaken to check the safety and wellbeing of these children. Additionally, the Commissioning Team were undertaking the Children’s Cross Regional Arrangements Group (CCRAG) monitoring regime.  This work, undertaken with partners, set out a method to ensure WSCC children were receiving the best care and outcomes, using the national benchmark framework. Members of the Committee considered that some of the financial aspects of the report were confusing and sought clarification as to whether the anticipated borrowing level of £500k was per annum. The Executive Director People Services advised this would be the annual borrowing cost if it was required.

32.3   Resolved that the Committee:

1.   Recommend additional explanation is provided in the decision report to assist with clarifying some of the more complex financial information.

2.   Suggests information regarding whether WSCC has a freehold interest in the children’s homes is added to the decision report.

3.   Supports the Cabinet Member decision to approve the strategy for the in-house children’s residential service.