Agenda item

The Panel received a report which informed Panel members of the findings from the evaluation of the Early Help Strategy 2021-24, as well as the priorities for the revised strategy for 2024-2027. The report was introduced by Jackie Difolco, AD Early Help, Prevention and SEND, as well as Simone Common, Head of Service, Early Help & Prevention, as set out at pages 9-60 of the published agenda pack. Cllr Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools & Families was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around the circa £550k payment by results grant (PBR) and the percentage of the overall budget that this comprised. In response, officers advised that the PBR was in addition to £1.1m of Supported Families grant, and that combined, the two made up roughly one-third of the Early Help budget. In response to a follow-up, the Panel was advised that the evaluation process was local, but that it drew down on robust sources such as case studies with partners, quality assurance, performance management, and conversations with parents.

b.    The Chair queried the reasons behind why the number of early help assessments had gradually declined. In response, officers advised that the numbers of assessments had dropped due to an improvement in supporting families to access universal services at an earlier stage. It was also commented that the organisation was seeing its partners be more confident in delivering help at the pre family support stage.

c.    The Chair queried the reasons why the early years assessments were concentrated in key areas in Tottenham, and the extent to which this was linked to deprivation. In response, officers advised that there was a significant correlation with deprivation and that prior to Covid, they were seeing a lot of families in acute financial stress. However, post Covid, there had been a significant increase of mental health support needs, and this tended to be cross-borough.

d.    The Chair also sought clarity around who the Council’s voluntary sector partners were and which groups we offered training to. In response, officers advised that they were working in partnership with the Bridge Renewal Trust, and that they were looking to widen their training offer as wide as possible. The training would also be offered online and shared through the training academy

e.    The Panel requested figures for the numbers of households engaging with early help services who were either homeless or in TA, and any figures around the differences in outcomes for those families who were dealing with homelessness. The AD for Early Help, Prevention and SEND advised that she would provide a written response. (Action: Jackie Difolco).

f.     Officers advised that since the process of working with Housing colleagues around Council Tax arrears and rent arrears, the service had found that families were not disclosing their financial difficulties to Early Help, and that through sharing information between the two services, they had been able to prevent some families from being made homeless. It was added that through sharing information, the service was able to offer targeted support and that this approach had been rolled out across children’s social care.

g.    The Panel commented that this seemed to build a case for early intervention within a housing context. The Director of Children’s Services advised that linking in early intervention around housing with early help may not be the best approach as, in her experience, if a family had a housing need, they were unlikely to be receptive to discussing educational or early help needs. If a family were homeless this would be a far more immediate need than any support around early help.

h.    The Panel queried what additional support programmes were in place for families who had children with SEND. In response, officers advised that the service was working closely with the educational phycology team to develop specific programmes to support children with additional needs. The key programme was identified as Cygnet.

i.      The Panel enquired about what work was being done within family hubs to engage with fathers. In response, officers advised that a dad coordinator had just been recruited, through home start, to build up the work being done to provide support to dads. There was also an interactive tool, called Dad Pad, which supported dads around pregnancy and early parenting.

j.      The Panel also highlighted the work of a Haringey based organisation called Father 2 Father which had recently received funding from City Hall. In response, officers advised that they had also received some funding from the Family Hubs in Haringey.

k.    The Panel sought assurances around whether there were any plans to expand the number of Family Hubs. In response, officers advised that there were currently three in Haringey, with the most recent being located in Northumberland Park. It was noted that discussions were ongoing over a location of a fourth hub, but that it would be located centrally within the borough. The Council had received confirmation of continued funding for the hubs for next financial year. Further details on the funding would be known around February time.

l.      In response to a question, officers acknowledged that the organisation could not deliver its early help offer without the support of the VCS. The Council engaged with both Public Voice and Bridge Renewal Trust and they advocated on behalf of LBH with other organisations across the borough, including around governance support and communications. It was noted that smaller groups were also funded through Family Hubs. Officers advised that training was open to everyone across the VCS. 

RESOLVED

Noted