Williamson Report: Implementation Plan – funding (P.17/2009) – amendment

STATES OF JERSEY

r

WILLIAMSON REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – FUNDING (P.17/2009) – AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 25th March 2009 by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

2009   Price code: C  P.17 Amd.

WILLIAMSON REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – FUNDING (P.17/2009) – AMENDMENT

PAGE 2 –

For the words "£1.3 million" substitute the words "£1.55 million".

DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

There is no doubt that there is widespread support for the Wlliamson Report and in particular for its implementation. As the proposition itself states in the introduction –

"On 29th January 2009 the Council of Ministers expressed its enthusiastic support for the course of action recommended by the Minister for Health and Social  Services  with  regard  to  the  Williamson  Implementation  Plan.  The Minister requested that part funding of the plan to a total of £1.3 million is brought forward from 2012 to 2009 to fund urgent service improvements vital to meet the current needs of vulnerable children. Furthermore, the Minister recommended that the remaining funding should be phased over the years 2010 to 2012."

The report goes on to briefly outline what parts of the Williamson recommendations are being progressed, and in particular what additional funding is required to make a start in 2009. What the report does not do is to focus on and examine the parts of the overall report which have been dropped and the reasons for doing so.

Those elements are given in Appendices 1 and 2 at the back of this report, including the phasing of the funding. In particular, attention should be drawn to items 5.1 and the items C1, C2 and C3 at the bottom of the table in Appendix 2. These are both highlighted as "Funding withdrawn".

Not only have these 2 elements been delayed, which might have been acceptable, they have been dropped. Item 5.1 refers to the development of an independent advocacy service for those children in care. The items collected under recommendation C refer to making the new services for these children "Laming Compliant".

It seems to me that both of these recommendations are crucial to the proper delivery of a service of a standard that Jersey children in care should expect. It seems to me that the recommendations have been cherry-picked. What is worse, in the absence of any reasoning to justify the abandonment of these recommendations, one is forced to the conclusion that their absence is driven solely by the need to cut costs and not that of delivering the appropriate service.

I therefore include the sections that refer to the 2 items contained in the Williamson Implementation Plan which has not been brought to the Assembly by the Minister. I believe they make the case for inclusion.

I believe the Assembly should have its say in deciding on the development of this vital part of our social service.

Recommendation

Establish group representing users of remodelled Children's Service Existing Services

There is currently no Independent Visitor scheme or Advocacy Service for Looked After Children. However, a similar model of service exists in other specialist areas, notably the Mencap Self-Advocacy Service. This service currently makes a substantial contribution to supporting parents with learning difficulties involved in formal child care or child protection processes. Focus on Mental Health Advocacy Service provides a similar service to the above, but for adults using the mental health services.

The Youth Service YESS project, which though a universal advice service for young people, also has an important role to play as a user friendly accessible service with a track record of engaging with young people including those who are vulnerable and disaffected.

Also relevant to this recommendation are the recent developments under the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) in terms of monitoring and informing the future development of multi-agency child protection services via mechanisms to capture and use the expert' views of service users.

• The  newly  formed  JCPC  Safeguarding  Children  Away  from  Home  Sub- Committee is working on the development of a formal Looked after Children Advocate role' for those in care or who have recently left care.

• The  JCPC  Procedures  and  Audit  sub-group  has  within  its  remit  the responsibility to design accessible and non-threatening ways for parents and young people to have the opportunity of feeding in their views about the child protection service and process so that the JCPC can take appropriate action to achieve change and improvement.

• The JCPC Communications sub-committee is also looking at ways of making the work of the JCPC better known in the community, with one of its aims being  to  encourage  Jersey  citizens  to  contribute  to  the  task  of  protecting children. A website is being established which will eventually provide links to self-help  and  voluntary  representative  groups  which  provide  help  to vulnerable children and families.

Other relevant bodies include:

• An Independent Board of Visitors for Greenfields which has been established under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 Regulations. The role and remit of this body is attached as Appendix viii.

• Fostering Panel: made up of independent members and those drawn from relevant disciplines. The function of this Panel is to advise on the suitability of persons  who  apply  to  become  Foster  Carers;  consider  their  continuing approval  following  annual  review  or  any  complaint,  allegation  or  other significant change in their circumstances; and to advise on any other matter relating to the fostering service.

• Adoption/Permanence Panel: constituted in a similar way to the Fostering Panel. This body advises of the suitability of persons who apply to be adoptive or  long  term  foster  carers;  considers  their  continuing  approval  as  above; considers the case of any child referred to it and makes a recommendation as to whether the child should be placed for adoption; and considers proposed placements  for  such  children  and  make  recommendations  accordingly. (See Appendix vi for full details of both Panels)

Proposed Services

1. Establish an Independent Visitor Service for Looked after Children and an Advocacy Service for children and young people.

It is proposed that a wholly independent service  is established for Looked After Children, primarily (though not exclusively) for those in residential care, particularly those who do not have on-going contact with their parents. The service will comprise a paid Manager/Co-ordinator responsible for the recruitment, training and support of a group of volunteers. This team will work within a robust safeguarding framework, and will be committed to establishing contact with those children who would benefit from regular visits with a concerned and interested adult. It will be dedicated to monitoring and ensuring their well being and helping them to express their wishes and feelings by encouraging self-advocacy or advocating on their behalf and reporting any cause for concern to the Independent Reviewing Officer (see Recommendation 4).

Fortuitously an individual with recent experience of regional management of a group of projects providing services to support children and families across the south west region of England and Wales is now working (in an unrelated field) in Jersey and is willing to provide expertise and assistance in identifying an appropriate service for Jersey.

See Appendix vii for a description of these services.

2. Support  self  help  and  voluntary  groups  to  ensure  their  sustainability  and facilitate  their  development  in  order  that  they  may  play  a  part  in  the improvement  and  development  of  services  for  vulnerable  children  and families who use child protection services, Looked After Children and leaving care services. Health and Social Services is already in discussion with the Jersey Care Leavers Association, working towards identifying how best to support this developing group.

Rationale

Service user groups can take a number of different forms and fulfil a number of different  functions.  Some  support  and  advocate  on  behalf  of  individuals,  others provide a voice' for groups of individuals with pertinent personal experience in order that they may inform the quality and development of relevant services. Both these approaches have a valuable role to play in Jersey.

Whilst it is important to ensure a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to user representation it is equally important to recognise the need for differentiated services and resources. In recognising that life experiences – whether in care or elsewhere – might  have  engendered  reticence  and  anxiety,  some  service  users  will  only  feel confident in approaching a group made up of people who have had similar experiences to their own. Equally, Looked After Children need to be afforded the opportunity to develop trusting relationships with appropriately selected and supported individuals who are wholly independent of the statutory services.

Trajectory

A  scoping  project  needs  first  to  take  place  to  identify  an  appropriate  model  of independent service for Looked After Children, bearing in mind the scale of service provided, and the need for it to be wholly independent of statutory services. The independent service's links to care service providers need to be designed carefully in order to ensure that independence is not compromised, but equally that its work can positively influence and enhance the welfare and protection of individual children in the care system. The likelihood is that the independent service will link with the Independent Reviewing Officer, themselves distanced from key service providers, (see recommendation 4).

Discussions with the Jersey Care Leavers Association are, at time of writing, at an early stage. Work with both the Jersey and national representatives will continue in order to identify the most appropriate arrangements for supporting the development of this organisation.

Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)

5.1  Combined Independent Visitor and Advocacy Service

Timescale

December 2008: Agree appropriate model for an Independent Visitor Scheme for Looked After Children and an Advocacy Service for children and young people.

February 2009 Develop Service Role Description, Job Descriptions as appropriate. Start process of recruitment of Manager/Co-ordinator, identifying premises etc.

June 2009 on: Recruit and train volunteers, consult with service providers. October/November 2009: Service begins.

Recommendation

Ensure that Social Worker caseload size and complexity is monitored, evaluated and where necessary reduced so that staff are effectively supported in discharging their responsibilities under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

To set a target reduction in caseload size to 12 child protection and looked after and accommodated children per Children and Families social worker and ensure sufficient legal advice is available to enable Social Workers to effectively discharge their duties.

Existing Services

One of the outcomes of the media spotlight on social services departments across the UK following the tragic death of Baby P' has been a commitment from the British Government to ask Lord Laming, who prepared an extensive report and delivered many recommendations for the improvement in services in 2003, to look again' at his recommendations and identify if they have been fully implemented in all areas.

One of the key issues that has been highlighted is the number of cases that any one social worker should hold at any one time, so as to ensure that they are able to effectively discharge their duties.

This was originally set out in general terms in Standard 3 in his report which covered Allocation, Service Provision and Closure' and stated at Recommendation 52:

Directors of social services must ensure that no case is allocated to a social worker unless and until his or her manager ensures that he or she has the necessary training, experience and time to deal with it properly'

The report also highlighted in a section about What is expected of Councils' at 7.2:

Ensure that adequate staffing and other resources are allocated to social services to enable it to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children in its area. Ensure that where there are significant changes in resourcing levels or organisational structures, the associated risks are assessed'.

The work was carried forward through the production and discussion of extensive government documents like Working Together to Safeguard Children' and Every Child Matters' and has led to the current position where the standard being quoted is the national media is that:

No front-line social worker should hold more than twelve cases at any one time'.

It is acknowledged that issues like: the complexity of the case; where the case sits in terms of care planning and/or Court procedures; which team' the social worker is in and what that team's responsibilities are (see Allocation Criteria' listed below); are all likely to have an impact. A simple analysis of the current caseload of the existing social  work  teams  involved  in  case  management,  against  the  quoted  standard, produces an indication of the surplus caseload that would result from introducing that standard.

(1), (2) & (3): Please refer to relevant Allocation Criteria' below Proposed Services

For the Children's Service in Jersey to be Laming Compliant' in respect of case management, there are two key issues that need to be addressed:

1. CASELOAD ALLOCATION:

In order to establish that caseloads are of an appropriate size and are compliant' in the terms being referred to in the press, it has been necessary to carry out an analysis of the current position against a Laming Compliant' caseload and to then compare that to the average monthly caseload' for the last full year of statistical data collection (2007). This then gives a balance that can be converted into the total number of

additional posts that would be required by the Children's Service. The following calculations are made on an assumption that the additional social work resources identified in Recommendations 8 and B of the Williamson Report: Implementation Plan have been successful and are already in place.

Allocation Criteria applied to calculations:

1. No front-line social worker should hold more than 12 cases at any one time.
2. Senior  Practitioner  social  workers,  who  generally  hold  the  more  complex cases and are required to provide both formal and informal supervision to their main grade colleagues on a regular and constant basis, should hold a reduced caseload of no more than two-thirds of that of their colleagues – 8 cases at any one time, in order that they are able to effectively discharge these additional responsibilities.
3. All social workers in the Assessment and Child Protection Team (main grade and Senior Practitioners), who have to deal with both allocated cases and the assessment of all new referrals received into the Service (an average of 93 a month in 2007) should hold caseloads that are further reduced by two-thirds from  their  colleagues  elsewhere  in  the  Service  so  as  to  allow  for  these additional responsibilities: thus, 8 cases for main grade social workers and 5 cases for senior practitioner social workers.

* The Leaving Care Team currently utilises two support workers' (experienced but non-social work trained staff) alongside a Senior Practitioner social worker.

Conclusion:

If the Children's Service in Jersey is to be Laming Compliant' in respect of the caseloads  allocated  to  its  social  work  staff,  then  we  would  need  the  following additional staffing resources:

4  Senior Practitioner (Social Workers) – Civil Service grade 11 posts 6  (Main Grade) Social Workers – Civil Service grade 10 posts

2. IN HOUSE' LEGAL ADVICE ON COMPLEX CASES:

The introduction of the new Children (Jersey) Law 2002, late in 2005, together with the  current  climate  occasioned  by  various  enquiries  and  reviews,  has  led  to  an unprecedented  increase  in  the  number  and  complexity  of  cases  that  are  in proceedings' before the Family Division of the Royal Court at any one time.

The Children's Service is currently active in 37 different applications in the Courts and the on-going volume of new referrals coming in to the Service mean that the service needs access to an in house' legal adviser who can offer support and advice from the earliest stages of complex enquiries and investigations so as to ensure the most effective outcomes.

The Law Officers have one advocate whose time is dedicated to this task but that does not allow a pro-active' stance where issues are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity and social work staff are fully supported by timely and appropriate advice, guidance and training in this most complex field.

Rationale

Following on from Andrew Williamson's Report on child protection service in Jersey, much recent national media attention has been directed at the tragic case of Baby P' and the failings of social services in the Haringey area. This same spotlight' will inevitably be focused on local services and it is entirely appropriate that the two issues listed above are highlighted for consideration at the same time as the other Williamson recommendations.

Trajectory

Whilst it would be desirable to appoint to these posts within a short timescale it is recognised that completion of this recommendation may take up to three years due to current complexity of social worker recruitment across the United Kingdom.

Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)

C.1  Increased Senior Practitioner Social Worker Posts to deliver Lord Laming

Compliant Social Work caseloads.

C.2  Increased Main Grade Social Worker Posts to deliver Lord Laming Compliant

Social Work caseloads.

C.3  Increased  Law  Officer  time  to  deliver  legal  advice  to  support  children's

services.

Timescale

Increases in workforce of this nature need to be phased over a period of time to enable appropriate recruitment processes to take place. It is anticipated that such recruitment could be completed by the end of 2011.

Financial and manpower statement

In making this amendment I have simply replaced the sums required for 2009 in order to allow the future development of these services. Over the period of 2009 to 2011 their will obviously be greater costs in resources as outlined in the Minister for Health and Social Services' own report.

Executive Summary

2009  Single Minister with responsibility for vulnerable children, refurbishment of Brig-y-Don  and  full  funding  of  staffing  costs,  Refurbishment  of  therapeutic  unit (white  house),  Development  of  Islandwide  Children's  &  Young  Peoples  Plan, Creation of Children's Directorate, independent annual inspection, governance officer, NSPCC review, funding for independent contact centre, intensive support team to prevent reception into care, Challenging Behaviour Therapist, Residential Child Care Officer pay review, video link between Greenfields and Magistrates Court, Service Manager for Children's Community Health, Senior Psychologist and therapist, Senior Practitioner in Child Protection, additional Social Workers , Children's Service Board Executive Officer, whistleblowing policy, development of role and infrastructure of JCPC.  Development  of  Independent  Child  and  Family  Court  Advisory  Service, Additional  Funding  for  Family  Mediation  Service,  Individual  training  plans  for Registered Social Workers.

2010  Development  of  Independent  Reviewing  Service  for  Children  in  Care, Medical advisor and nurse for children in care, child protection health visitor, further development  of  psychological  assessment  and  therapy  services,  development  of emergency out of hours child protection service, local professional social worker training program.

2011  External  Reviewing  Officer,  the  closure  and  sale  of  La  Preference, Refurbishment of Heathfield, acquisition of New Residential Unit, Completion of Psychological Assessment and Therapy Services for Children.

2012  The closure and sale of Heathfields Children's Home.

Executive Summary

2009  Single Minister with responsibility for vulnerable children, refurbishment of Brig-y-Don  and  full  funding  of  staffing  costs,  Refurbishment  of  therapeutic  unit (white  house),  Development  of  Islandwide  Children's  &  Young  Peoples  Plan, Creation of Children's Directorate, independent annual inspection, governance officer, NSPCC review, funding for independent contact centre, intensive support team to prevent reception into care, Challenging Behaviour Therapist, Residential Child Care Officer pay review, video link between Greenfields and Magistrates Court, Service Manager for Children's Community Health, Senior Psychologist and therapist, Senior Practitioner in Child Protection, additional Social Workers , Children's Service Board Executive Officer, whistleblowing policy, development of role and infrastructure of JCPC.  Development  of  Independent  Child  and  Family  Court  Advisory  Service, Additional  Funding  for  Family  Mediation  Service,  Individual  training  plans  for Registered Social Workers.

2010  Development  of  Independent  Reviewing  Service  for  Children  in  Care, Medical advisor and nurse for children in care, child protection health visitor, further development  of  psychological  assessment  and  therapy  services,  development  of emergency out of hours child protection service, local professional social worker training program.

2011  External  Reviewing  Officer,  the  closure  and  sale  of  La  Preference, Refurbishment of Heathfield, acquisition of New Residential Unit, Completion of Psychological Assessment and Therapy Services for Children.

2012  The closure and sale of Heathfields Children's Home.