Agenda item

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education and the Director of Children’s Social Work and Early Help will give a presentation to the Commission outlining the vision for the development of services in Leicester in response to the governments reforms to children’s social care known as the Families First programme

The Strategic Director for Social Care and Education submitted a report to the Commission to outline the vision for the development of services in Leicester in response to the governments reforms to children’s social care known as the Families First programme.

The Assistant City Mayor for Children and Young People introduced the item as an exciting and ground-breaking piece of work that aimed to break down barriers through strong partnership working in communities. Emphasis was placed on the importance of helping families stay together, stay safe, and remain supported within the family unit.

The Strategic Director presented the report. It was noted that:

• The work had originated from a government initiative and aligned with Leicester’s priorities.
• A previous review of children’s social care had not resulted in significant change, but the current government had embraced the “Stable Homes Built on Love” report and introduced a new programme called Families First.
• The aim of the programme was to intervene as early as possible to reduce the number of children going into care.
• The approach aimed to keep children at home with their families, which would free up foster placements and allow more funding to be directed toward intensive family and community support.
• Six locally based Family Help Teams were being developed, building on existing early help services and the children’s centre network.
• It was noted that social workers often lacked knowledge of local areas. The new model proposed merging child in need and care home functions into the six local teams to improve coordination.
• There were no reductions in multi-use centres, and a single front door remained in place for referrals from professionals or concerned individuals.
• Family Help Practitioners would lead more multi-agency work, involving partners such as local policing, youth services, education, housing, schools, public health nursing, GPs, and therapy services.
• Families would be encouraged to create their own social care plans, with support from the teams. The aim was to empower families to take greater responsibility for their futures, with practitioners there to help deliver those plans.
• It was acknowledged that some families had trust issues with council-branded services. The programme intended to increase the role of the VCSE sector, especially in cases of chronic neglect and long-term support.
• In cases where abuse or complex safeguarding issues were present, experienced social workers and health and safeguarding specialists would step in and lead on child protection and court proceedings.
• Health practitioners would work alongside the family help teams to provide support and allow continuity of care.
• The programme placed emphasis on avoiding temporary settings for looked-after children and aimed to deliver better value for money by placing more Leicester children within the city.
• Continued support would be provided to families even after children entered care, including working with parents and the wider family network.
• Leicester currently had seven children’s homes, with plans underway for an eighth. The city had received government grants to support this and was recognised for effectively managing homes on a larger scale.
• These homes were not used for the most complex children, who were instead supported locally to ensure proper care.
• Longer-term plans included forming a partnership with a non-profit provider to expand city-based services and reduce reliance on high-cost independent placements.
• The new staffing model and commissioning approach had already been signed off.
• The programme was not a cost-reduction exercise, and it included £2.5 million of additional government investment this year.
• A recent spending review confirmed continued funding, including the expansion of therapy services.
• It was noted that previous austerity programmes had used change as a cover for cuts, but this was not the case with Families First.
• Community-focused commissioning would go out to tender for areas such as drug and alcohol support, domestic violence, and other areas of VCSE led work.
• The staffing model had been finalised, with the aim of having teams in place by April 2026, ahead of the April 2027 deadline.
• Child protection teams would take longer to establish, and work was ongoing with senior health managers, public health teams, and housing partners to develop integrated pathways.
• The six local networks would continue to evolve, having been co-produced with families and children in local areas to ensure they reflected local needs.

In discussions with Members, the following was noted:

• Questions were raised about how engagement would be widened across agencies such as GPs and schools, and how the model would be publicised.
• Officers confirmed they had begun engagement, including conversations with headteachers and public health colleagues. A senior change manager and police representative had also been appointed.
• Members supported the approach, describing it as positive and a step towards building trust following the pandemic.
• Queries were raised about whether hubs based in libraries and community centres could help ensure local provision was maintained.
• Officers responded that there were no plans to close hubs, apart from one site that was not fit for purpose. The aim was to use buildings more effectively and explore co-location of services.
• It was suggested that more support should be available at front-desk level in council buildings to help people navigate services.
• Members reflected on the importance of supporting a wider range of family structures beyond the traditional nuclear family and involving local organisations in decision-making processes.
• Questions were asked about whether new staff would be recruited or if existing staff would be redeployed, and when the success of the programme would be assessed.
• Clarification was sought on why fostering was mentioned in the context of keeping children with families.
• Officers explained the village approach, emphasising the value of extended family, neighbours and community in supporting families. They also noted that while some children would still require care, efforts were focused on creating better outcomes and value for money.
• Members noted that the programme felt like a much-needed shift after years of reduced funding and uncertainty.
• Communications around previous changes had caused confusion, and members requested that the presentation be shared more widely.
• Concerns were raised about recent closures of youth centres and how this aligned with the new strategy.
• Officers acknowledged variation across the city and recognised the need for targeted engagement with communities to understand gaps in provision.
• A note of caution was raised regarding the scale of transformation required. It was emphasised that the quality of leadership, staff engagement, and multi-agency collaboration would be key to success.
• Officers acknowledged previous challenges with similar initiatives but stressed that this programme was informed by successful past practice, government backing, and lessons learned.
• It was noted that while some previous attempts failed due to lack of resources or poor structure, there was now greater clarity about roles and delivery.
• Officers recognised that there would be challenges, trial and error, and some mistakes along the way, but maintained that the drive to succeed remained strong and that measurable success might not be seen for 2–3 years.
• It was raised how equality, diversity and inclusion would be embedded in the programme. The model had been co-produced with communities and designed to reflect the unique needs of each local area. Ongoing responsiveness and listening would be crucial.
• Concerns were raised about the high costs of external care placements and how the programme aimed to reduce these through better local provision.
• Officers reported a 9% reduction in looked-after children since 2023, saving approximately £3 million annually. Local provision had significantly reduced weekly placement costs while delivering improved outcomes for children.

AGREED:  

1.    That the report is noted.

2.    That regular updates on the progress of the Family First Programme would come to the commission.