Appendix 4 - Options Considered
Options
Considered in the
Development of the Proposed Model
Return on
Investment
Analysing 2020 published
LAIT data we can identify that in 2020 the Rate of Children Looked
After in Brighton was 74 per 10,000, compared to Brighton’s
statistical neighbours who were at an average rate of 66 per
10,000. If Early Help maximises its effectiveness in reducing
demand for statutory services and supports a reduction in the
number of Children Looked After in line with statistical
neighbours, based on 2020 figures this would equate to a reduction
in expenditure of around £2m per annum.
Options
to be considered
In the development of the
proposed model for Early Help as outlined in Recommended Future
Model, Peopletoo considered a number of options identified below.
Informed by the early conversations with key stakeholders, the
presenting data and government policy/ initiatives, the crucial
elements to include were identified as:
·
Whole-family
working
·
Seamless and
accessible to families, carers and young people
·
Reflective of
local needs
·
Harnesses and
values partners and community resources
In addition, given the
financial constraints currently placed on Local Authorities there
is also the need to consider budget feasibility.
Option 1: Do
Nothing
Without any revision to
the current model, there is a risk of increasing demand on
statutory services as a result of demographic pressures and
changing needs not being addressed.
It is also apparent that
there is risk of inefficiency and duplication within the current
process, which if not addressed will continue to adversely impact
the effectiveness of services which currently make up the Early
Help offer.
In addition, this is not
supporting the delivery of key government initiatives in relation
to Whole Family Working.
This option would require
no additional investment.
Option 2: Redesign of
in-house Early Help Services
Whilst a remodelling of
existing in-house services would provide opportunity to address
some of the key findings from the review in relation to defined
pathways, simplification of referral routes and removal of
duplication, it would not provide the opportunity to co-produce and
develop place based working with partners. This option therefore
would not address a critical challenge around ownership and
accountability, with the council continuing to be seen by many
partners as responsible for the delivery of Early Help.
There would be capital
investment required in terms of addressing some of the IT issues
identified within the review, and also transformation costs to
support the implementation of the business case and restructuring
that would be required. However, longer term we believe this could
be delivered within the existing budget with reconfigurations of
current teams/ staffing.
Option 3: Commission Early
Help Externally
This option is not in line
with the wider ambitions and ethos of BHCC and externally
commissioning, without significant re-design, is unlikely to
deliver the change required and improve outcomes for
families.
This would require ongoing
investment in commissioning and contract management expertise and
would also require client-side oversight and governance.
There is also a risk that
existing staff will not wish to TUPE to external agencies and that
the experience and skills could be lost threatening at a minimum
the delivery of current outcomes achieved.
Without soft market
testing this option it is difficult to identify any additional
third party expenditure, but it is likely that over time there
would be a requirement to commission services to support gaps in
identified needs, rather than being able to draw on partners and to
reconfigure existing services, which would be more feasible under a
place based model.
Option 4: Re-design Early
Help Services and Development of a Place Based
Model
This option is as outlined
in the Recommended Future Model, which sees the redesign of
internal Early Help services and the development of a place based
model incorporating Family Hubs, Community Based Services and
a Community Connector type role.
It is recommended that four defined areas are created, identified
by the service as being east, north, west and central parts of the
city. Whilst the offer will be variable depending on an assessed
level of need to support the local community, it is suggested that
these are linked to school clusters, other public sector services,
youth and the VCS offer. Within
the model, BHCC resource will be focused on providing targeted
interventions at tier 2 and above, with universal services being
supported by the place-based model.
It is proposed that there is a reconfiguration of core Early Help
services which include FIS, Children Centres, PACE,
Parental
conflict, ITF team, Parenting team and EH
co-ordinators,into
Family Hub Teams. It is envisaged that the VCS and Community based
activities will continue as is but within the same place-based
model, adopting a whole family approach.Longer
term we would propose that where appropriate wider Council services
that sit outside of the core EH services are incorporated within
the Family Hubs, such as homelessness.
Preventative services currently commissioned
should be
evaluated and recommissioned where there is a need identified which
is not currently being met, and ideally a joint commissioning plan
with partners such as health developed. In the review undertaken by the Early
Intervention Foundation (EIF) joint commissioning of services was
seen by those developing family hubs as key to enabling
multi-agency working. This is consistent with messages from
practice from a range of studies of multi-agency systems which
suggest that joint funding and commissioning
arrangements are associated with better
joined-up support systems of support / help for
families.
With a complex
array of providers involved in each local family hub network,
joint commissioning bridges the gaps between organisations and
makes clearer how families should journey through the network of
services. Local partners can execute their vision and strategy
for integration within their family hubs approach which can
also act as an incentive for partners to join.
Capital investment will be
required to support development of appropriate buildings for the
Family Hubs / Children Centres and IT requirements. Longer term it
is proposed that any further commissioning / provision of services
is targeted and informed, and therefore addressed on a
return-on-investment basis. Initial investment will be required to
project manage and support the transformation activity and
restructuring and resourcing required.
Summary
Based on our findings from
the review, we have scored the following options against the
deliverability of the critical outcomes identified as a result of
this review. Scoring is based on 0 - not being met to 3 - highly
met. As can be identified below the preferred option is option 4)
which we have gone to outline in detail under the Recommended
Future Model section of the report.
|
Options
|
Assessment of Options
Based on Deliverability of Critical Outcomes Identified
0 – Not Met / 1
– Low/ 2 – Medium / 3 – High
|
Total
|
|
Whole Family
Working
|
Seamless
& Accessible to Families
|
Promotes
Partnership Working
|
Reflects
Local Need
|
Feasible
within Funding Constraints
|
|
1)
Do
Nothing
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
7
|
|
2)
Redesign of
in house Services
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
8
|
|
3)
Externally
Commission Early Help Services
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
|
4)
Redesign
Services into Place Based Model
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
14
|
