Children and Young Peoples Executive
Agenda Item: 3.1
Date of Meeting
8th February 2010
Title of Report
Update on progress towards co-ordination of locality
services
Jacqui Jensen, Assistant Director Locality Services
Children and Young People’s Department
Author
SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.
This report sets out the progress of locality co-ordination and advances co-location
of frontline children’s services as the next step towards a city wide integrated front
line service delivery model. The report offers a timeline for full integration.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
2.
Background
2.1
The City for Children and Young People is working towards the delivery of integrated
front line services in order to meet the requirements of Children Act, 2004. The
intention is that through delivering services that are integrated Children’s Trusts will
improve outcomes for local children and young people.
2.2
The Area One Trailblazer was launched in November 2006 with an intention to move
from the co-ordination of virtual teams through the work of identified integrated team
leaders of co-located teams.
2.4
In June 08 Children Centre Management was aligned with the social care team
management structure under locality HOS (under 11).
In February 2009 a co-ordination model was approved as an interim process for
locality 2 and 3 /4, driven through Targeted Youth Support and a virtual team around a
school (0ver 11s) with a review expected in Autumn 2009.
3
Co-location and Logistics
3.1
Logistical and accommodation solutions are key issues for integration and whilst there
have been logistical success some barriers evidenced in the trailblazer evaluation
remain unresolved.
1. There is no ICT solution which enables education, health, connexions and
social care systems to 'talk' to each other. Differing partner's governance
requirements require repetition of data input.
2. Project support to Integration from Asset Management has been requested
and is not currently available to drive integration accommodation solutions.
The Locality Senior Management Team has attempted to resolve these
accommodation issues however, these are time consuming and operational
priorities take precedence. There are solutions available but procedural
requirements preclude HOS from progressing the work.
3. Health colleagues have identified funding for accommodation in Localities 1
and 2, but not funding for admin, supplies and services.
The trailblazer overcame a significant number of logistical barriers; storage of health
records; co-ordination of administrative support; ICT networking and inputting in
Locality One however, similar solutions now must be sought across Derby to enable
reintegration roll out.
3.2
Co-location and accommodation
Locality 2 - Education welfare, social care and health staff are now permanently colocated. There is an additional space requirement for other 'youth' disciplines and a
locality Reception Team. A resolution is offered by utilising space in the local
children's centre to accommodation one team from the Stanley road office. The colocation in the children's centre offers benefit to service users and is meaningful in
service delivery terms; however, there are associated costs of £30,000 for ICT and
benching.
Locality 3 – Operates largely as a typical social care service and no staff from other
agencies or disciplines are co-located / integrated. Benching of the work space in
Ashtree House is required to provide space to accommodation health, youth
disciplines and education welfare staff. Some limited space will be released with the
move of two reception teams to localities.
Locality 5 – Work is being undertaken to facilitate space for a multi disciplinary team
in the Mackworth / Morley children's centre. Again this is meaningful in service
delivery terms.
Locality 1 – Locality 1 & 5 staff are currently based across three offices, two of which
are not purpose built for service delivery. Asset management are of the view that the
two offices, Beaufort Business Centre (BBC) and Roosevelt present health and safety
difficulties in relation to client groups and social work; also Roosevelt has structural
difficulties leading to case records being destroyed on two occasions.
The lease costs for the third base (Revive) are significantly above the market rate.
Health colleagues intend to pull out their staff due to cost, which has the potential to
unravel integration in the trailblazer area.
Health partners have offered an opportunity for the relocation of an integrated locality
1 in newly acquired Cardinal Square, however, the lease costs cannot be met within
the existing cost envelope. Leaving the only possibility for accommodation in Locality
One as the BBC, moving staff from Revive and Roosevelt. Negotiations are required
with 'New Deal for Communities' management to swop office space in the building, as
is additional capital for benching and ICT. The BBC solution is not an adequate
solution; the building has no reception point; doesn’t support customer visits but there
is no apparent solution perhaps until the CE’s accommodation programme has been
completed.
3.3
Reception Services
It is intended to situate a dedicated Reception Team in each locality, to respond to
Tier 3/4 casework in that area. This approach will enable the provision of:


A service which meets the requirements of the Ofsted Unannounced
Inspection and planned Safeguarding Inspection.
An efficient, effective service which provides value for money.

A service which is customer facing and is linked to the locality and locality
teams.
Alongside the locality Reception Team, supported by the Reception Manager, a
trained and experienced 'Single Point of Access' administrator will provide:
 Information and signposting advice to anyone in the locality
 Co-ordination of the safe and efficient management of contacts and CAF's at
tier 2 and the embedding of integrated processes into operations.
 A clear business process for the movement of work into and within the locality.
 The direction of work from centralised services such as the youth offending
Service, into Locality Service Teams, removing the requirement for redirection
through Reception teams.
 A Locality Service which supports the information and signposting
requirements of schools and other partners.
Weekly locality multi-disciplinary / agency vulnerable child allocation meetings (under
11 and over 11) will support management learning of eligibility thresholds and ensure
safe and timely access for families to an intervention plan.
The barrier to the development of locality based Reception Teams is the provision of
adequate and safe locality co-located accommodation.
3.4
The accommodation solution proposed requires upfront capital investment from the
partnership, specifically Health pro rata to staff numbers.
The cost of the accommodation solution offered has not been assessed, due to the
lack of project support.
4.
Integrated Management
4.1
Current Structural Management Arrangements
Localities 1/5 have integrated Senior Management with HOS for over and under 11's
services and Integrated Managers for frontline teams. A Health co-ordinator is linked
to but not based in the locality.
Localities 2 and 3/4, with the exception of Children's Centres, have host agency line
management. Health co-ordinators are linked to but not based in the localities.
4.2
The trailblazer evaluation report indicated that in the implementation phase the
demands on management time were significantly increased, particularly in relation to
management of social work staff. It recommended that,
'New integrated leaders need a structured induction and transition into the role as well
as ongoing support to develop the new competencies including the management of
thresholds. The requirement to manage thresholds has required significant support
from the matrix management arrangement. This is the case particularly for services to
younger children.'
4.3
The confidence building and learning referred to above (and in more detail in
appendix 2) requires co-location, team and service managers being part of
management teams and sharing / contributing to case work decision making
particularly in relation to threshold discussion, risk assessments and risk judgements.
In consideration of the evaluation findings, it is intended that,
 HOS (over 11) will be accommodated in the Locality they are responsible for
alongside their HOS (under 11's) colleague.
 HOS (over 11) will take day to day operational responsibility for all over 11's
case work and service delivery aimed at over 11's in their locality including
social care.
 HOS (over 11) will be responsible for Targeted Youth Support, support to
neighbourhood tasking and partnership with secondary schools in their area.
Driving TYS through co-located multi disciplinary Youth Teams.
 HOS (over 11) will retain strategic leadership for a specific service area i.e.
Connexions; Youth Service and Education Welfare.
 Both locality HOS will put in place matrix management arrangements, as
evaluated in the trailblazer, to ensure safe delivery of services and good
outcomes for young people.
 Both locality HOS will share responsibility for strategic leadership and delivery
of integration within their locality alongside strategic leads from partner
agencies and services.
 HOS (under 11) will retain a strategic lead for an area of Social Work delivery,
governance and line management of all locality social work (until January
2012) and management of the locality Reception Team.
 HOS (under 11) will be responsible for partnership arrangements with Primary
schools and Nurseries in their locality.
 Health Co-ordinators in each locality will be members of the Locality Snr
Management Team, and provide line management and clinical supervision of
locality health staff.
These arrangements are expected to be in place by September 2010.
In the interim, virtual management teams for Under and Over 11's in each locality will
be established; a business process which enables connectivity of casework need
across the tiers, vulnerable child allocations meetings and 'Single Point of Access'
administrators will be instituted by 1st March 2010.
Targeted Youth Support co-ordination is developing on a differentiated need basis.
As the HOS role and matrix management arrangements develop, it is expected that
Integrated Team Management, currently in place in Locality 1 will be rolled out.
5.
Key issues for integration roll out
5.1
Integration whilst successful to a significant degree is in danger of unwinding in
Locality 1. The Health co-ordinator has not yet moved in, some Health staff have
indicated dissatisfaction with the current accommodation including the costs of
Revive; frontline staff in Localities 2 and 3 /4 have indicated commitment to integration
and correspondingly dissatisfaction that the trailblazer model hasn't been rolled out
across the city.
NHS Derby are currently consolidating their staff accommodation and accommodation
costs centrally.
5.2
There are issues arising from the division of NHS commissioning and provider
services that require resolution over the next 18 months, specifically where does the
provider arm of the NHS find a home. The Council, through CYPD have expressed
interest to hosting the provider service in principle.
5.3
There is some evidence to suggest that the development of prevention services (Sure
Start Children’s Centres, extended services, closer partnership working) has
increased the identification of children in need in the city. In turn this has increased
the demand for services experienced by all agencies, with the exception of social care
in Locality 2.
5.4
There is some evidence to suggest that the outcome gap is widening and that with
increased population mobility, particularly in locality 3 /4, there is an increased level of
complexity of work faced by officers across the partnership
5.5
There is the impact of cases in Haringey and Doncaster, which have also increased
the pressure on all agencies working with children and families.
There has been particular pressure on social care with:
 a new regulatory framework including unannounced inspections of reception
services and announced inspections of safeguarding and LAC services.
 an increased in volume
 an increase in statutory and legal intervention
 a corresponding crisis in social work recruitment
5.6
Finally DCSF have instituted a new framework for inspection which includes
Unannounced Inspection of Contact and Reception Services and Announced
Inspections of Safeguarding and Looked After Children Services.
6.
6.1
Next Steps
In February 2009 the Locality Services Steering Group recommended to the City for
Children and Young People that the next step towards integrating service delivery for
the city as a whole is taken by implementing a city wide co-ordination approach for the
next 12 months (1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010), the co-ordination approach is now
in place.
6.2
To move beyond the interim phase, It is proposed that from 1st April 2010 a city wide
approach to delivering services to children and young people will be based on
integration and co-location. Staff will be gradually co-located and supported by their
employing agency’s line management structure.
From September 2010 HOS (over 11's) will assume operational management of all
CYPD youth teams / provision within each locality, providing a single management
structure to all CYPD staff with the exception of social workers who will have host
management supervision until June 2012. (see Appendix 1)
6.3
Negotiation with Derby NHS regarding a fully integrated locality single management
structure will commence, with an aim for matrix management arrangements to be set
up and operational by January 2012.
6.4
The operation of these arrangements will be overseen by the Locality Services
Divisional Management Team. Locality Planning will be overseen by the Locality
Steering group.
7
7.1
Implications for the Children and Young People’s Department
Structural Implications
The recommendations for roll out did present structural implications for the Locality
Services Division of the Children and Young People’s Department in that the inclusion
of children's centre management and volume of social care service provision under
the HOS under 11's is a stretch.

The development of partnerships with primary schools has suffered as a
consequence. The movement of all over 11 casework and service delivery to
HOS over 11 will facilitate effective management and partnership working
within the under 11's service delivery area.

The linkage of centralised reception services and Careline with locality 3 /4 is
too broad a brief, particularly given the requirements of the new regulation
framework. The decentralisation of reception into a locality model will remove
this anomaly but retain responsibility for Careline with the HOS (under 11's)
Locality 3 /4.

Safe strategic leadership and management of social work case work is
imperative for children and young people and the partnership. The timeframe
and structure ensures that Integrated Managers and HOS new to social care
are given adequate time to enable them to become effective, efficient and
confident supported by co-located matrix arrangements.
The intended structure will provide a more equitable balance of strategic and
operational management across the localities and ensure that the registration and
inspection requirements are appropriately managed. There is still much to be
achieved from integration with Connexions and primary health care services.
7.2
A locality strategic development plan is being developed to bring the work plan for
locality integration and its component parts and performance expectations into one
document with clear milestones, timescales and lead managers identified. The plan
will be monitored by the Locality Steering Planning Group.
7.3
A review of the structure will take place in Summer 2011 to reassure the partnership
that a safe and efficient operational management structure is in place.
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.
CYP Executive is asked to:
10.1

Consider the accommodation solution offered and joint funding (pro rata) as
assessed.
10.2

Offer a partnership solution to project management need.
10.3

Consider the proposal to follow on from the co-ordination (staged) approach to the
proposed model of integrated front line delivery for the city.
10.4

Consider the timeline advanced for full integration of children’s frontline services
Jacqui Jensen
AD Locality Services
January 2010
Appendix 1
Locality Services: Integration Roll out Timeline
March 2010
September 2010
September 2011
January 2011
SPA for tier 2 referral in localities
Under 11 and over 11 operational
management differentiated
Single management structure of
localities under 11 and over 11
Single structure management of all
staff using matrix management
approach.
CYPD staff managed by integrated
team leaders / service managers
Vulnerable children multi disciplinary
management meetings for the
allocation of work
SW's line management by SW
manager: with matrix management of
service managers responsible for
social care.
Matrix management of health and
social work staff has been tested and
evaluated. Reported through Locality
Planning Structure and CYP Executive
Group
temporary dedicated HOS time to
Reception Development Plan.
Co-located locality staffing including,
Health Co-ordinator based in localities
and Reception team in localities
Negotiation with Health Provider AD
regarding full locality integration
requirements and next steps.
Shadow arrangements to be
developed to allow management
development;
Fully embedded formal partnership
arrangements with schools
Preparatory and development work
with locality staff to be undertaken
RIEP Leadership development pilots
courses to be explored.
RIEP Leadership development
courses to be utilised
Evaluation of reception services
including partners, parent and child
survey.
Staff evaluation of integration.
Appendix 2 excerpt from Trailblazer evaluation report February 2009.
Social Care Management versus Integrated Management
A key issue identified by the trailblazer and brought over from the DMT report in 2009 is the
amount of social care casework support provided by managers relative to other professions,
particularly in relation to the under 11s.
It is the case that social care has the lead statutory responsibility for safeguarding children at
risk of significant harm. Two key factors have developed from this; agencies have historically
passed the responsibility to manage thresholds of intervention to social care and social care
has grown a culture of a high level of management monitoring and support to staff in order to
manage risk. On one level this approach has been very successful; Derby has a very good
track record in safeguarding. The consequences of the approach are little independent
professional decision making by front line social care staff (in contrast to other professions) and
a high level of demand placed on social care managers.
This means that the matrix management responsibilities for social care managers are much
greater than those for managers from other backgrounds. The trailblazer has found that over
time managers from other backgrounds become progressively more confident in managing
services to vulnerable children and assessing thresholds. However, this will take considerable
time and will require a significant level of support to be managed safely in a city wide model of
integrated delivery.
4.3
The extent to which they are relied upon needs to be carefully considered in plans for roll-out.
The extent of the leadership task in the trailblazer must not be underestimated and whilst a
significant amount has been learned that will both impact on a model for the city as a whole and
support implementation, it remains the case that the integrated leadership role is demanding.
The trailblazer has shown that in the implementation phase the demands on
management time are significantly increased.
New integrated leaders need a structured induction and transition into the role as well as
ongoing support to develop the new competencies including the management of thresholds.
The requirement to manage thresholds has required significant support from the matrix
management arrangement. This is the case particularly for services to younger children.
RD evaluation report
Appendix 3 Cost and funding analysis for accommodation requirements.
Current
Locality 1/5
Locality 2
Costs
Current
lease
costs
Total
Projected
Costs
Projected
lease
Total
Set up ££
Capital
required
Capital
cost
Total
BBC
Inclusive costs
(60 staff)
27539
Education
welfare Saxon
house
30000
Revive
Service charge
(8 CYPD staff)
Health staff
accommodation costs
5805
Stanley road
office running
costs
ongoing
Roosevelt
(12 staff)
28818
Cost to CYPD
89586
2424
Locality 3 /4
Ashtree house running
costs
Total
costs
ongoing
25000**
Locality 1/5
30000
Locality 2
Locality 3 /4
BBC
expansion costs
(80 staff)
40,919
Stanley road
office running
costs
ongoing
Reigate children centre
contribution
** £1373
6200
Sure start
children centre
Contribution
6500
cost to CYPD
47119
BBC
Mackworth Morley
children centre
11000
14590
?
0
??
?
Total
costs
Funds
released
0
54700
40967
??
?
Ashtree house running
costs
6500
New ICT link,
benching, build
work
94586
Benching & ICT
approx cost
?
n.b. ** negotiation with Health partners for a contribution to set up costs will take place (e.g. 23% in Reigate) according to staffing numbers,.
Appendix 4
Locality Services – Current Structure
Jacqui Jensen
Assistant Director
Head of Service
Social Care
Ls 1 & 5
Nina Martin
Head of Service
Social Care
L2
Head of Service
Social Care
Ls 3 & 4
Maureen Darbon
Graham Reiter
Head of
Education
Welfare
City Wide
L2 Co-ordination
Kevin Murphy
Mary Gordon – Head of Commissioned Services -Connexions ***
Co-ordination Over 11s City Wide
Head of
Youth Service
City Wide
L 3/ 4 coordination
David Finn
Head of
Connexions
Derby
L1 & 5 over 11s
co-ordination
Steve Baguley
Head of
Childcare
Services and
Family Learning
Fiona Colton **
Head of Child &
Family Services
NHS Derby City
Jane Elliott
Appendix 5
Locality Services – Tier 2/3 Restructuring Intentions
Jacqui Jensen
Assistant Director
Head of Service
Under 11s
Ls 1 & 5
Nina Martin
Head of Service
Under 11s
L2
Maureen Darbon
Head of Service
Ls 3 & 4
Under 11s
& Careline
Graham Reiter
Head of Service
Ls 1 & 5 over 11s
& Connexions
Steve Baguley
Mary Gordon – Head of Commissioned Services -Connexions ***
Co-ordination Over 11s City Wide
Head of Service
L2 Over 11s
& Education Welfare
Kevin Murphy
Head of Service
Ls 3 & 4 over 11s
& Youth Service
David Finn
Head of Child &
Family Services
NHS Derby City
Jane Elliott
Head of
Childcare
Services and
Family Learning
Fiona Colton **
** Attends Locality Services Divisional Management Meeting to facilitate co-ordination
*** Attends Locality Services Divisional Management Meeting and 121s with AD, for co-ordination of over 11s