Agenda item

The Director of Children’s Social Work and Early Help submits a report setting out understanding of current needs, the availability of provision and plans for the development of the Edge of Care offer over the next three years.  The strategy provides information on the range of approaches and the impact achieved from the services and interventions provided.  It outlines how new innovations, being developed in Leicester, will support a cohort of children and young people as well as covering and addressing the challenges, evidence of impact as well as value for money.

The Director of Children’s Social Care and Education submitted a report on the Edge of Care Strategy which set out the understanding of Leicester’s current needs.

The Head of Service for Early Help, Targeted Service and The Service Manager for Family Therapies gave a presentation on the Edge of Care strategy, which referred to children at risk of needing to be looked after. It was explained that this involved factors such as parental relationships, behaviour, income and pressures on the family unit that could affect safety and stability. The strategy also considered children already in care who might be supported to return home safely. It was noted that:

• Most local authorities had an Edge of Care strategy, as this was both one of the most expensive and one of the most challenging areas of provision. Previously, there had been numerous carers available to meet children’s needs, but demand on the system now meant there were often only one or two places available. Focus was therefore on making local family connections, including extended family, and strengthening in-house residential care to support families to keep children within their wider networks. This approach had been relatively successful and demonstrated excellent practice.
• Leicester’s service was regarded as exceptional and unparalleled in many parts of the UK. It had developed over twelve years from humble beginnings to a comprehensive local offer, supporting children to stay with their families where possible. This was seen as a distinctive and valuable feature compared with other parts of the country.
• There was no single definition of “edge of care,” but it was described as those children whose needs could be met through family-based services and therapeutic support, particularly for those of secondary school age. Issues leading to referrals often related to parental behaviours, over-representation of alcohol use, and undiagnosed conditions such as PTSD or personality disorders.
• The “Safe Steps Home” programme was presented as a key element of the approach. The model had been designed with children and families and included support for young babies and pre-births, recognising that early intervention could prevent children from entering long-term care.
• During the last financial year, the programme worked with around 734 children across approximately 300 families. Of these, 199 children were supported to remain safely at home without ongoing service involvement. It was estimated that without intervention, those children would have entered care. The programme delivered savings three times higher than originally projected by finance, with an estimated £7m saved for the authority. Outcomes were monitored at 6, 12, 18 months and 5 years, with data showing the plans were sustainable and effective over the long term.
• The programme ensured that when children did need to come into care, services could be focused on those most in need. Leicester’s decade of experience in this area was highlighted as a source of pride.
• Looking ahead, the next steps included strengthening communication packages and ensuring that support was maintained beyond the initial intensive period, so families continued to develop and apply skills once children returned home.
• It was acknowledged that this was challenging work, but strong evidence from the pilot demonstrated very positive results. Decision-making was now focused on expanding the offer, balancing financial responsibility with the moral imperative to support children and families effectively.

In response to comments raised by Members, the following was noted:

·       Members welcomed the strategy and highlighted that keeping children safely at home was the ideal outcome. Questions were raised about how many families were rejected or unable to proceed through assessment.

·       Officers explained that only a very small number of families were not eligible, usually where there were high risks such as active abuse, psychosis or sexual harm, which made the intervention unsafe or unsustainable. Some families also chose not to engage. In these cases, safeguarding action would still be taken, and alternative support or placements considered.

·       It was acknowledged that despite the success of edge of care services, some children would inevitably still need to come into care when risks were too high. Capacity within the service was also a limiting factor.

·       Questions were asked about national averages for carer strike rates, with officers reporting that Leicester remained above the national figure.

·       Clarification was sought on how outcomes were measured against Ofsted frameworks. It was explained that inspection findings broadly mirrored the service’s own assessments, though there could be inconsistency in how practitioners recorded information.

·       Members asked how the service could reduce reliance on very high-cost placements. Officers confirmed that placements were regularly reviewed, with a focus on whether expensive out of area placements were appropriate, or whether children could be safely supported to return home. This work was also linked to therapeutic services and other preventative programmes.

·       It was raised about how outcomes were tracked beyond the 12 to 18 months guidelines. Officers explained that cases were reviewed on a weekly basis and that data mining was used to check long-term outcomes, including whether families had been re-referred into the system. While families were not supported indefinitely, evidence showed that many interventions sustained over time, with tracking extended up to five years to demonstrate long-term impact.

·       Members heard that a funding bid had been submitted to test what additional evidence-based programmes could work in Leicester, taking into account the city’s diversity and demographics. Scrutiny would be updated on the outcomes of this work

·       Concerns were raised about how long children remained in contact with services after interventions ended, and whether there was a statutory duty to continue to check their wellbeing. Officers clarified that if a child remained at home, responsibility lay with the family unless a professional raised new concerns.

·       Questions were asked about the speed of assessments, with members noting the recommended 10-day timeframe. Officers confirmed that most cases met this target, though engagement with families could create delays. A new policy had been introduced to ensure that where families did not sign consent within two weeks, the case would be escalated to legal and social work teams.

·       Members asked how the service ensured equity for children from diverse backgrounds. Officers explained that teams were representative of Leicester’s population, with many bilingual staff and access to translators, and services were adapted to reflect different cultural needs.

·       It was acknowledged that some families were suspicious of social services. Officers explained that systemic practice involved engaging the family’s wider support network, building trust, and ensuring families understood the role of practitioners. This approach had proven successful in securing lasting support beyond the service’s direct involvement.

Agreed:

     The strategy was noted, with members expressing the hope that

     future updates would continue to demonstrate positive outcomes.