Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which set out the proposals for the Children’s Social Care Investment Plan to procure four properties and commission a new team to provide a new model of residential care for the most complex and vulnerable children and young people in Leicestershire.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were raised:

i)                The Children’s Innovation Partnership had been tasked with carrying out a number of design briefs, the first of which related to residential care.  The proposed solution contained three elements which would be delivered in two phases – phase one was the recruitment of a new Assessment and Resource Team (ART) and phase two included the development of a Hub containing three assessment beds and three multi-functional properties.

ii)               It was noted that the ART would offer similar provision to the current MISTLE contract provided by Action for Children.  This would be decommissioned and the children and young people currently supported within the MISTLE project would transfer to receiving ART support.  The County Council, Barnardo’s and Action for Children were working together to consider TUPE implications and to ensure continuity of service.  The current contract value of MISTLE was £450,000 compared with the annual value of ART of £411,840.  However, it was stressed that this had not been developed as a savings initiative but as an opportunity to meet the requirements of the service and improve outcomes for children and young people.

iii)             In response to a query, it was reported that a period of comprehensive design work had been undertaken and this had looked at the current need and the profile of young people being worked with.  It was known that more young people with complex needs were coming into the system and a primary driver had been how best to deal with these needs.  It was the aim to be able to offer those with the most complex needs a place where they could be adequately assessed.  The work being undertaken would ensure that there was the current sufficiency of places and that the young person’s needs were being met.

iv)             It had not yet been identified where the properties would be located; a piece of work would be undertaken to ascertain the type of provision required and engagement would take place with the local community and elected members once an appropriate location had been found.  However, prior to this, a series of workshops would be held to consider building design and how they could be child needs led and these would involve young people and appropriate stakeholders.  It was, as yet, unclear whether the buildings would be bespoke or market available.  It was noted that the buildings would be owned by the County Council but managed through Barnardo’s, who had significant experience in this area.

v)              As part of the comprehensive design work, consideration had been given to what was required to support this cohort of young people.  It had been identified that a multi-disciplinary team was needed to work around young people, either in residential settings or elsewhere.  The notional idea of developing the ART had arisen from this.  It was acknowledged that the work of MISTLE had been highly successful in stabilising placements and ensuring children returned home.  The learning from this had therefore been used to build the ART, with a primary driver of delivering this through a single system.

The Committee noted that a report was being presented to the Cabinet on 24 March 2020 to seek approval to allocate additional capital investment to the programme.  It was agreed that an update on progress with the Residential Design Brief be provided to the Committee at its meeting on 1 September and a further progress update be provided in a years’ time.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the report be noted;

b)    That an update on progress with the Residential Design Brief be provided to the Committee in six months;

c)     That a further progress update be provided to the Committee in a years’ time.