Consultation on the re-procurement of the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Consultation on the re-procurement of the
Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services
Consultation Analysis Report
May to July 2020
Author: Consultation, Equalities & Accessibility Team, Business Intelligence, Northamptonshire
County Council
Owner: Children First Northamptonshire, Northamptonshire County Council
Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
2. Consultation Methodology ................................................................................................... 4
3. Summary of Feedback ........................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Questionnaire feedback .................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 About the respondent................................................................................................ 6
3.1.2 Professionals’ feedback ............................................................................................. 7
3.1.3 Parents/carers’ feedback ......................................................................................... 22
3.1.4 Children and young peoples’ feedback.................................................................... 28
3.1.5 Feedback from other interested parties .................................................................. 32
3.1.6 Demographic information........................................................................................ 32
3.2. Provider facilitator feedback collection form ................................................................ 34
3.3. Professionals and partners workshops feedback .......................................................... 38
2
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0
Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
1. Introduction
The current Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services contracts expires on 31st March
2021 and procurement rules mean that a new tendering process will need to take place to
award new contracts from 1st April 2021. The current contracts are for:
Family Intervention Services (FIS)
(Currently provided by Action for Children)
Multi Systemic Therapy Services (MST)
(Currently provided by Cambs and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust)
Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer
(Currently provided by Catch 22)
These services are designed to work with the whole family to support and develop strategies
that enable the family to stay together and to help to prevent the children from coming into
care. The current services deliver to children and young people with a range of needs such as
poor family functioning, physical, mental or emotional health needs and damaging
behaviours such as substance misuse or antisocial behaviour. Interventions range from short
term help to stabilise and monitor the family through to longer term interventions of up to 6
months to support the families to make lasting positive changes.
Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) wants to ensure that the current services continue
to help families stay together as a family unit and are provided at the time when the family
needs it without delay. The current funding envelope has reduced by £671,000 to give a
total budget £940,000 on which to commission services. Therefore Children First
Northamptonshire (CFN) will be looking for innovative ways to keep the service levels the
same whilst the budget is reduced.
In May 2020 the CFN Senior Leadership Team gave permission to formally consult on the
future of the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services contracts to help inform the
procurement of services.
CFN do not want to reduce the number of families that are worked with and want to find
ways of working that are tailored to the family’s needs, and that are delivered at the exact
time a family requires help for as long or short a time as they need it. CFN are also working
with providers to help develop innovative ways of working to facilitate this that may involve
working with partners across all agencies and sectors, secure match funding from other
sources or perhaps collaborating with the voluntary sector to build a group of highly skilled
volunteer family support workers.
3
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0
Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
The consultation sought views about how the current services are being delivered and what
stakeholders would want from future service delivery so any new service can best meet
ongoing needs within the reduced budget parameters.
The consultation was held between 22nd May 2020 and 17th July 2020. This report is an
analysis of the information and data gathered during this consultation.
This consultation was conducted by Children First Northamptonshire and the Consultation,
Equalities & Accessibility Team based within NCC’s Business Intelligence team, and was
carried out in compliance with the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Policy and
Statement of Required Practice.
2. Consultation Methodology
The following outlines the public consultation methodology used to generate the material /
data for analysis.
It should be noted that from Monday 23rd March central government placed the UK into
‘lockdown’ due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the consultation various
restrictions were in place in order to contain the spread of the virus, including social
distancing measures. However, like many other services the three providers were still
supporting families and adapted their service delivery accordingly although mostly via
remote methods.
The consultation methodology took into account the COVID-19 pandemic and the
approaches were designed to allow participants to be able to give informed consideration
and response.
Due to the breadth of potential stakeholders, three questionnaires were devised. The
questionnaires were designed to:
Inform customers and stakeholders of the current services delivery, demands, and
the consultation proposal.
Seek views on the current service delivery to understand what is considered to be
working well and help identify whether the current service is meeting users’ needs
and how it can best continue to meet future needs within a reduced budget
envelope.
Invite feedback and alternative solutions or suggestions to the proposed budget
reduction.
Gain an understanding of the demographics of respondents.
4
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
A number of qualitative and quantitative questions were asked to gain an understanding of
respondents’ views. There were different sets of questions depending on whether the
respondent had a professional relationship with the services; were a parent or carer; a child
or young person; or if they were responding in any other capacity. The questionnaire was
made available on a dedicated internet web page on NCC’s Consultation Hub, which is where
all of the Council’s consultations are published. Paper copies of the consultation documents
were available upon request.
Staff from the three providers actively promoted the consultation and invited staff and
families to participate in the consultation by circulating the link.
Due to COVID-19 and the safety restrictions in place, no face-to-face sessions were held,
however Commissioning officers held the following ‘virtual’ workshops for professionals and
partners via Zoom:
A strategic level workshop with Senior Managers in the Social Care frontline services
and the Police with regards to the Appropriate Adult and PACE transfer services.
A provider workshop with providers to explore how services could be delivered
differently.
The Northamptonshire Safeguarding Children Partnership (NCSP) were also sent the
presentation and the link to the consultation in order to get feedback from all agencies with
a statutory responsibility for Safeguarding (Local Authority, Police and Health).
It it anticipated that the involvement of some stakeholders may continue beyond the initial
consultation phase to enable ongoing co-design of the services during their procurement.
This may also include input from the CFN reference groups to help ensure the ongoing ‘voice
of the child’ continues to be heard during the tender process.
Respondents were able to speak to Commissioning officers by telephone to give them the
chance to speak the Council officers responsible for purchasing the service and to have any
queries answered and to give verbal feedback, although no feedback was received via this
method.
A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) were also published to help support the
consultation.
Details of the consultation and a web link to the online questionnaire were circulated
electronically to parents, carers, children and young people that have used the service; the
Safeguarding Services; Early Help Services; Northamptonshire Safeguarding Children
Partnership (NCSP); Care Leavers Council and Children in Care Council; Public Health 0-19
Service; Healthwatch Northamptonshire; and various other provider professionals. It was
also circulated to the individuals and organisations signed up to receive notification of the
5
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Council’s consultations, which includes County Councillors; local MPs; District, Borough and
Parish Councils.
An email address was published to help respond to queries or receive feedback.
A gap analysis of respondents during the consultation period identified that not many
children and young people were participating. Due to the importance of capturing the voice
of children and young people, support was sought from providers to help in obtaining their
feedback.
Providers were asked to facilitate talking to families and asking them a series of questions. In
order to maintain consistency with how the questions are being asked and feedback
recorded a presentation and proforma were developed for providers to complete. However,
it should be noted that due to the families participating via this method it is likely these
participants already have a positive relationship with the provider, which may be reflected in
their feedback. Only the Providers of longer term interventions undertook this as they had
built a relationship with the families. MST and Family Intervention Services carried out these
interviews.
3. Summary of Feedback
This is a summary of the feedback received. It is recommended that it is read in conjunction
with the full consultation results, which can be found in the Appendix. All of the unredacted
feedback received has been shared with Children First Northamptonshire so all of the
responses received can be considered in their entirety.
3.1. Questionnaire feedback
A total of 86 questionnaire responses were received, generating feedback that included
some 357 comments from the different groups of respondents.
The following question was asked of all respondents to direct them to their specific set of
questions.
3.1.1 About the respondent
Respondents were asked what their main interest was in the consultation. A total of 86
respondents answered this question, with respondents being able to select one answer
option. The most frequent respondent type were professionals who have an interest in the
service, with 70.9% selecting this answer option, followed by a parent / carer (i.e. foster
parent) with experience of the service (16.3%). Two questionnaire responses were received
6
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
from young people who have experience of the service (2.3%). The respondents who
identified themselves as ‘other’ said that they had a role in Safeguarding and that they were
aware of the work carried out by MST.
3.1.2 Professionals’ feedback
The following section is a summary of the questionnaire feedback provided by the 61
professional questionnaire respondents.
Professional respondents were asked which organisation / agency / sector they work for.
The most frequent respondent type was professionals working within education, with 48.9%
selecting this answer option. This was followed by professionals working within NCC’s
Children’s Service (27.7%). 14.9% of respondents were from a provider of the service (i.e.
Catch 22, Action for Children, Cambs and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust). There were
no responses from professionals working within Police, Health, or charitable providers. The
two respondents who identified themselves as ‘other’ and made comment identified
themselves as being from the Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service.
7
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Respondents were asked to provide their job title/role to help give us an understanding of
the type of professionals who participated with the consultation. There were 45 responses
submitted to this question. Respondents most frequently gave a role in education, such as
Head Teacher/Principal or Designated Safeguarding Lead (15 respondents). This was
followed by Social Worker (six respondents). Several respondents mentioned roles relating
to Family Support, Safeguarding, Education Inclusion/Inclusion and working for one of the
providers. Smaller numbers mentioned roles working with children and young people with
SEND, in Business Support, in the Fire & Rescue Service, in a pastoral role and a Team
Manager.
Professional respondents were then asked which services are relevant to their work. Of the
46 respondents who answered this question, 65.2% said Multi Systemic Therapy Services.
This was closely followed by Family Intervention Services (63.0%). 21.7% said Rapid family
intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer service. The 15.2% who
selected ‘other’ mentioned a wide range of services, including domestic abuse, child and
sexual exploitation, mental health/counselling, MASH, SEND support, pastoral services,
young people placements in ISAs and ‘all other relevant services’.
8
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Professional respondents were then presented with a list of statements about the services
and were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with the current effectiveness of the
services/interventions listed for each of the service providers.
A total of 41 respondents answered this question about the Family Intervention Services
(Action for Children). Although some respondents said they did not have experience of the
service, the majority of respondents who did were satisfied with all of the services provided.
The percentage of satisfaction is listed below in descending order using the combined total
of those respondents who said they were either very or fairly satisfied:
Keeping children and young people out of care (72.0%)
Keeping children and young people in education (70.0%)
Keeping children and young people from offending (64.0%)
Keeping children and young people from damaging behaviours (53.3%)
9
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
When asked about the Multi Systemic Therapy Services (Cambs and Peterborough NHS
Foundation Trust), there were 41 respondents who answered this question. Although some
respondents said they did not have experience of the service, the majority of respondents
who did were satisfied with all of the services provided. The percentage of satisfaction is
listed below in descending order using the combined total of those respondents who said
they were either very or fairly satisfaction:
Keeping children and young people in education (92.9%)
Keeping children and young people out of care (92.6%)
Keeping children and young people from offending (88.4%)
Keeping children and young people from damaging behaviours (85.7%)
10
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
The Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer service
(Catch 22) only had one statement regarding it which asked how satisfied or dissatisfied
respondents were with the support the provider gave to children, young people and/or their
families when they need help. There were 39 responses to this question, again some
respondents said they did not have experience of the service but of those respondents who
did, the majority of them (80.0%) said they were either very or fairly satisfied with this
service/intervention.
Professional respondents were then asked in their experience, on average, how long do
families have to wait for a place on the services/interventions offered to them. This question
was split so that respondents could give different answers for each of the three providers.
There were 38 responses to this question and not all respondents provided feedback on
11
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
each provider. However, the majority felt the Rapid family intervention and Appropriate
Adult Service and PACE transfer service had the shortest waiting times, with 60.0% of
respondents with experience of this service saying the average time families had to wait was
between 0-3 weeks. Respondents felt the Family Intervention Services had the longest
waiting times, with 57.7% of respondents with experience of the service saying the average
wait was between 7-12 weeks, and 19.2% saying 12+ weeks. Access times to Multi Systemic
Therapy Services varied but most families appear to be able to access the service within
either 0-3 weeks (36.0%) or 4-6 weeks (32.0%).
Respondents were then asked, based on their knowledge, how confident they were that the
services/interventions would bring about the changes required. This question was split so
that respondents could give different answers for each of the three providers. A total of 38
respondents answered this question but not all provided feedback on each provider as some
had no experience of one or more of the services. The majority of the respondents that did
have experience felt confident that the services/interventions would bring about the
changes required. The percentage of confidence per service area is listed below in
descending order using the combined total of those respondents who said they were either
completely or somewhat confident:
Multi Systemic Therapy Services (96.3%)
Family Intervention Services (89.2%)
Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer service
(86.3%)
No respondent said ‘Not at all confident’ for Family Intervention Services and Multi Systemic
Therapy Services.
12
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Professional respondents were then asked based on their knowledge, how confident they
are that the services/interventions protect the children and young people from (more) abuse
or harm. Again this question was split so that respondents could give different answers for
each of the three providers. A total of 37 respondents answered this question but not all
provided feedback on each provider as some had no experience of one or more of the
services. The majority of the respondents that had experience felt confident that all of the
services/interventions protect children and young people from (more) abuse or harm. The
percentage of confidence per service area is listed below in descending order using the
combined total of those respondents who said they were either completely or somewhat
confident:
Multi Systemic Therapy Services (96.1%)
Family Intervention Services (85.7%)
Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer service
(85.7%)
No respondent said ‘Not at all confident’ for any of the service areas.
13
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Professional respondents were asked overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are they with the
current effectiveness of the Safeguarding Intervention Services. This question was split so
that respondents could give different answers for each of the three providers. A total of 37
respondents answered this question but not all provided feedback on each provider as some
had no experience of one or more of the services. The majority of the respondents that did
have experience said they were satisfied with the current effectiveness of the services. The
percentage of satisfaction per service area is listed below in descending order using the
combined total of those respondents who said they were either very or fairly satisfied:
Multi Systemic Therapy Services (88.9%)
Family Intervention Services (72.4%)
Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer service
(68.2%)
No respondents were dissatisfied with the Multi Systemic Therapy Services.
14
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Respondents were then invited to tell us why they felt that way. There were a total of 48
responses submitted to this question, with respondents being able to feedback about each
of the three providers separately. Sixteen respondents commented about Family
Intervention Services (Action for Children). Twelve respondents said they were either very
satisfied or satisfied, with a third saying that the service results in improved outcomes for
young people. The same proportion also said that the services achieves good engagement
with families, and some respondents particularly mentioned successes with harder to
engage families. Other positive comments included praise for the 1:1 support and practical
support offered by the service and the view that the service is knowledgeable and proactive
when it comes to safeguarding. The work with other professionals was also highlighted as a
positive, with one respondent feeling that support from FIS allows social workers to focus on
social work.
Although saying that they were satisfied with the service, some respondents made
comments that were more negative. Three respondents said that the waiting list was too
long. Other comments included the view that support sometimes ends before improvements
in a family have been embedded, that the service doesn’t always persevere with harder to
engage families, that the support criteria is not clear and support sometimes comes too late,
and that the service is less effective with adolescents.
Three respondents who said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied gave comment. A
range of comments were made, covering the views that contact and communication could
be improved, that the waiting list is too long, that the service is inconsistent and that one
professional is still waiting for a worker to be allocated to the family they are working with.
15
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
One respondent who said they were dissatisfied also mentioned the waiting list, saying that
the intervention was too late and the situation had either escalated or the family case had
closed.
Nineteen respondents commented about Multi Systemic Therapy Services (Cambs and
Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust). Twelve respondents said they were either very
satisfied or satisfied and gave comments, most of which were positive. A third said that the
service works intensively with families to help them to make changes and deal with
challenges. A quarter of respondents said that the service achieves positive outcomes for
families.
A couple of respondents said that the service helps to keep families together. A similar
number said that MST is an effective research based model that can demonstrate results.
Another couple of respondents said the service is good at communicating with other
professionals.
Other positive comments included the view that the service empowers families, that
interventions are available quickly, it has a long-lasting impact, provides good safeguarding
support and has effective business support. One respondent felt that the service is
persistent with hard to engage families, although another respondent thought that the
service is less successful when families are not receptive to intervention.
Although saying that they were satisfied with the service, some respondents made
comments that were more negative, in a similar vein to the comments made in relation to
FIS. One respondent said that the waiting list was too long, and that support sometimes ends
before improvements in a family have been embedded.
One respondent said that their view on MST was the same as for FIS, and another said it was
not applicable to them.
One respondent who said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied made a comment,
saying that the waiting list was long and that no contact had been made to give them
updates.
The only other comments received in relation to MST was that it was not applicable to two
other respondents.
Thirteen respondents commented about Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult
Service and PACE transfer service (Catch 22). Ten respondents who said they were either
very satisfied or satisfied made comments. Half of these respondents praised the rapid
intervention nature of the service provided by Catch 22, writing positively about the advice,
support and crisis management they felt was provided in a timely manner. Two respondents
16
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
said either that they had no issues regarding Catch 22 and safeguarding, or that the service
provided lots of oversight on safeguarding.
Other positive comments included the view that the service is particularly effective in
emergency situations and out of hours support and the view that the service is ‘brilliant’,
‘high quality’ and ‘fantastic’. One respondent thought that it provides a good service but that
the timescale is often too short.
Although saying that they were satisfied with the service, one respondent said that the
waiting list was too long, and that support sometimes ends before improvements in a family
have been embedded, in a similar vein to the comments made in relation to FIS and MST.
Another respondent said that sometimes referrals were refused if they have previously been
supported by the service.
One respondent who said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied made a comment,
saying that based on having worked with one of their families previously, the waiting time
was long, at times they did not attend meetings but the family were supportive of the
service and some progress was made.
One respondent who said they were dissatisfied made a comment, saying that the service
did not complete the intervention for a family as required and agreed.
One respondent who replied ‘not applicable’ said they had no experience of the service.
Professional respondents were then given a reminder about the current funding budget
reduction by £671,000 to give a total budget £940,000 on which to buy services and the
need to look for innovative ways to keep the service levels the same but with less funding
available.
Respondents were asked to consider on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘No impact’ and 5 is
‘Significant impact’, how much of an impact they thought the above changes will have. Of
the 32 respondents who answered this question, the majority felt that the budget reduction
would have a significant impact, with 81.2% rating it as either a 4 or a 5. No respondents felt
it would have no or little impact (i.e. rating it as either a 1 or a 2). Three respondents rated
the impact as 3 and three respondents said they did not know.
17
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Respondents who felt it would have an impact were invited to tell us what they thought the
impact would be. There were 17 responses submitted to this question.
No respondents who commented thought it would have an impact of 1 or 2. One respondent
that commented who thought it would have an impact of 3 said that reduced budget could
lead to longer waiting times for families in crisis. However, they were supportive of finding
collaborative ways of working.
Sixteen respondents that commented thought it would have an impact of 4 or 5. Almost half
expressed the fear that the service could become less effective with a reduced budget,
supporting fewer families, having longer waiting times and delivering fewer early
interventions. Several respondents felt that a reduced budget could lead to more children
being taken into care.
A couple of respondents felt that reduced budgets could lead to more reliance on
volunteers, who might find it more difficult to support harder to engage families who would
be better supported by professionals. They felt this in turn could make it difficult to recruit
volunteers. Another couple of respondents felt that a reduced budget for the service could
have a knock-on effect on other professionals such as social workers or those in schools,
who may have to do some of the work that would have been carried out under these
contracts. Another couple of respondents felt that children and young people need more
support than ever and this would be harder on a reduced budget.
Other respondents thought the impact could be an increase in mental health issues,
addiction issues, domestic abuse, child abuse/harm and low school attendance and
exclusions. One respondent felt that the service needs more money, not less, with another
saying that service are already reduced and hard to access and that workers have large
workloads. Others said that there needs to be more investment in early help and that there
needs to be multi-agency working, clear processes and support mechanisms.
One respondent said that the budget reduction could bring opportunities such as effective
service specialist services and alternative funding arrangements. However, they then set out
a detailed analysis of how they felt that MST had performed well and supported children in
Northamptonshire, and cited several research pieces which review the effectiveness of MST.
Professional respondents were then asked if they believed it would have an impact, to tell us
what they think needs to happen to make sure the impact is minimal for those affected.
There were 18 responses submitted to this question. Respondents gave a wide range of
comments. A couple of respondents said that the service should receive more funding or at
least not have a reduction in funding. Another couple of respondents said that the focus
should be on paid staff providing support to families to ensure consistency and continuity,
something which they felt is difficult with volunteers. A couple of respondents said that
18
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
other professionals need to be supported if they have to pick up additional work as result of
this budget reduction, citing social workers and school professionals. Another couple of
respondents said the reduction could be mitigated by having streamlined services that
outline support based on the needs of the family that are clear to all services involved.
One respondent said there needs to be more early help and short-term help for struggling
families. Another said that funding should be targeted towards resources that focus on ‘at
risk’ and ‘in need’ families, using cost-effective services that are monitored. One respondent
said that fewer families should be supported, rather than reducing the time spent with more
families. Another respondent said that funding should be secured from elsewhere to
maintain current service levels. One respondent expressed their concern that a reduced
budget would impact services and timescales.
A variety of other suggestions about the service were made:
Ensure services are accessible by professionals, flexible and timely
Treat all cases individually
Keep the core support service unchanged with no reduction in staff or availability
Ensure there is transparency about timelines and reasons for referrals and non-
referrals
Make early phone contact with families who have been accepted for support to begin
building relationships to mitigate longer waiting lists
Respondents were then invited to put forward any alternative solutions or suggestions to
the proposed budget reduction which they would like to be considered. There were nine
responses submitted to this question. Respondents made a variety of comments. Several
respondents said that the budget should not be reduced. A similar number suggested joint
procurement and commissioning and partnership working as an alternative.
One respondent said that schools should be provided with tools to enable them to support
families. Another respondent suggested that the Council should invest in short-term services
for families in addition to longer-term MST support. They also said that the Council should
continue to commission evidence-based services that demonstrate good value for money.
Other suggestions included:
Tailored interventions
Ensuring the service is efficient and closely evaluated
Purchasing services from other local authorities
Looking for alternative sources of funding
Making MST available via Early Help Assessments
Two respondents said they had no suggestions or that it was not applicable to them.
19
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Professional respondents were then asked how healthy and effective relationships could be
developed with both partner organisations and families that would best improve the safety
and welfare of children. This question was broken down so respondents could give their
views for partner organisations and for families. There were a total of 29 responses
submitted to this question. Fourteen respondents made comments about partner
organisations. Around a third said that good communication is really important for
improving the safety and welfare of children. A similar number said that good partnership
working is really important, as is understanding what partners can and can’t offer. Several
respondents said that open and transparent practice (by NCC and partners) is necessary for
keeping children safe. A couple of respondents suggested using technology and virtual
methods for meetings, along with ad hoc conversations with colleagues.
Other suggestions included keeping staff consistency and having a low turnover of staff,
being responsive, being more available and accessible to families and working to support
families and reduce the risk of harm.
One respondent said that they had experienced good and bad practice in this area. Another
respondent said that they didn’t know.
Fifteen respondents commented about developing healthy and effective relationships with
families, with around a quarter saying it was important to be open and honest with families,
setting out clear expectations and the benefits of engaging with the support. Around a fifth
said staff consistency was important. A couple of respondents said support needs to be
targeted, focused and bespoke for the family.
Other suggestions included using online tools to increase contact with families, having good
communication and delivering services in a timely manner. Another respondent said it was
important to look at the young person holistically to best support them, and another said
the service needs to be non-judgmental to build trust. One respondent said staff need to
respect the equality and diversity of families, and another said they need to be transparent
with families about the implications of not complying with the support. Another respondent
suggested short early interventions could help. One respondents said that families are
unclear of the support available, that they have difficulty accessing it and that there is a long
wait time. Another respondent said they were unsure.
Professional respondents were then asked what one thing they would like to see improved
about the Safeguarding Intervention Services. There were 19 responses submitted to this
question. Around a quarter of respondents said that waiting lists should be shorter. Several
respondents said that the services should continue. A couple of respondents said that
communication could be improved, and another couple of respondents said there should be
easier access to services, including when families want it rather than when they meet a
threshold.
20
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Other improvements suggested were having more services available; that services should
stay involved with families until their work is embedded; that services should be tailored to
individual families’ needs; and that there should be more support for children and young
people at risk of permanent exclusion from school.
Respondents also suggested working more closely with schools; that social workers needed
to be knowledgeable and permanent so they can build relationships with families; that
support should be available via Early Help Assessments Level 2; and that the Council should
commit to investing in evidence-based interventions.
Respondents were then asked if there is anything they thought the services should stop
doing that would help improve the services. There were 10 responses submitted to this
question. Almost half of respondents who commented said that the Council should stop
reducing the budget. Other suggestions included to not cease working with families before
change has been embedded; to stop making so many changes to the professionals working
with families and to stop employing temporary workers; to stop sending out information
that is difficult for families to understand; and to stop funding resources that don’t have a
proven evidence base. One respondent said they couldn’t identify anything that should be
stopped.
Professional respondents were then asked if there is anything they thought the services
should be doing more that would help improve the services. There were 10 responses
submitted to this question. Respondents gave a wide variety of comments. A couple of
respondents mentioned reduced waiting times. Other suggestions for improvements
included using virtual tools to work with families; continuing to use MST; looking at joint
commissioning streams; providing more funding; and adding more services and merging
some others with Safeguarding. Other respondents suggested better communication;
including partners (e.g. education and health) in discussions; improving the recruitment and
retention of social workers to provide consistent support for families; continuing to listen to
families and young people’s feedback to shape future services; and having direct
consultations, advice and support.
Professional respondents were then invited to make any other comments about the
Safeguarding Intervention Services. There were nine responses submitted to this question.
Respondents made a range of different comments. A couple of respondents said that the
services need to be protected. One respondent said that funding should not be cut,
especially in the light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and its likely impact, while another
felt that a funding reduction will lead to greater pressure on Social Care.
One respondent felt that the Safeguarding Intervention Services are vital services that help
many families, and another respondent described them as ‘expert practitioners in their
field’.
21
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
One respondent felt that schools need additional support because they are picking up cases
that would have been dealt with by Social Care previously. Three respondents had no further
comments.
The below WordCloud demonstrates the most frequent words respondents mentioned
whilst answering the above question:
3.1.3 Parents/carers’ feedback
The following section is a summary of the questionnaire feedback provided by the 14 parent
and carer questionnaire respondents.
Respondents were initially asked to list the ages of the young person(s) they are responsible
for. The ages mentioned by the 14 respondents who answered this question ranged
between 11 to 16 with 14 being the most frequently mentioned, as shown in the below
chart.
Age of young Number of
person respondents
11 1
12 2
14 5
15 2
16 4
22
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Parent and carer respondents were then asked which services their family have experience
of. From the 14 respondents who answered this question, 13 (92.9%) have experience of
Multi Systemic Therapy Services; four (28.6%) have experience of the Rapid family
intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE transfer service; and two (14.3%) have
experience of Family Intervention Services.
Parent and carer respondents were then presented with a list of four statements about the
services and were asked if they agreed or disagreed with them regarding each of the service
providers.
A total of 13 respondents answered this question about the Family Intervention Services
(Action for Children), although 12 respondents said the service was not applicable to them.
The one respondent who did have experience of the service said they agreed with all of the
following four statements presented to them:
Staff listen and understand my families personal circumstance
Staff treat me with respect and dignity
Staff made me feel trusted
Staff have kept me well informed about what is happening
When asked about the Multi Systemic Therapy Services (Cambs and Peterborough NHS
Foundation Trust), there were 13 respondents who answered this question. All of the
respondents said they have experience of the service and they all agreed with the same four
statements mentioned above.
When asked about the Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service and PACE
transfer service (Catch 22), there were 12 respondents answered this question. Eight of
these respondents said the service was not applicable to them, and the four that did reply
gave mixed opinions, as shown in the below chart.
23
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Number of respondents
Agree Neither agree Disagree Don’t
nor disagree know
Staff listen and understand my
2 2 0 0
families personal circumstance
Staff treat me with respect and
2 1 1 0
dignity
Staff made me feel trusted 2 1 1 0
Staff have kept me well informed
2 1 0 0
about what is happening
Parent and carer respondents were then asked if they felt the involvement of the
Safeguarding Intervention Services has had a positive or negative effect on their family. This
question was split so that respondents could give different answers for each of the three
providers. A total of 13 respondents answered this question but not all provided feedback
on each provider as some had no experience of one or more of the services. Overall the
majority of the respondents that did have experience of the services felt it had a positive
effect on their family, as shown by the below chart.
Number of respondents
Positive Negative Don’t know
Family Intervention Services 1 0 0
Multi Systemic Therapy Services 11 1 0
Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult
2 1 1
Service and PACE transfer service
Respondents were then invited to tell us why they felt that way. There were a total of 23
responses submitted to this question, with respondents being able to feedback about each
of the three providers separately. Of the four respondents who commented about Family
Intervention Services (Action for Children), one respondent that said it had had a positive
effect made a comment, saying that they have good support but that they are having
difficulty getting something done with the service and that they have to fight for what they
need for their children.
Three respondents said this question was not applicable to them.
Of the 13 respondents who commented about Multi Systemic Therapy Services (Cambs and
Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust), 11 respondents that said it had had a positive effect
made comments. Seven respondents said that MST gave them strategies to manage and
understand their child’s behaviour. A couple of respondents said that staff are willing to
listen and are sympathetic and empathetic towards them.
24
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
One respondent said that the involvement has helped them to maintain a relationship with
their child, while another said that the service gave them confidence in the actions they
were taking. One respondent said that the service is solution-focused, and another said it
takes a holistic approach to family support.
One respondent gave details of how MST had supported their whole family through some
difficult times and de-escalated the involvement of other services. They said that they have
the skills to deal with future problems and that their family is now happy. The respondent
was concerned about the impact of a reduction in funding on other families who need
support.
One respondent that said it had had a negative effect made a comment, saying that they are
in the early stages of MST and feel in a worse place than before, having been given
contradictory advice.
Of the six respondents who commented about Rapid family intervention and Appropriate
Adult Service and PACE transfer service (Catch 22), two respondents that said it had had a
positive effect made comments. They said that the service provided the support they
needed, calmed a volatile situation and that it was a positive experience for them.
One respondent that said it had had a negative effect made a comment, saying that they
were told that the child is never wrong and that everything they do is their fault.
One respondent who answered “don’t know” said that they had involvement with different
people. Two respondents answered “not applicable”.
Similar to professional respondents, parent and carer respondents were then given a
reminder about the current funding budget reduction by £671,000 to give a total budget
£940,000 on which to buy services and the need to look for innovative ways to keep the
service levels the same but with less funding available.
Respondents were asked to consider on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘No impact’ and 5 is
‘Significant impact’, how much of an impact they thought the above changes will have. Of
the 13 respondents who answered this question, similarly to professional respondents, the
majority of the parent and carer respondents felt that the budget reduction would have a
significant impact, with 92.3% rating it as either a 4 or a 5. No respondents felt it would have
no or little impact (i.e. rating it as either a 1 or a 2). One respondent rated the impact as 3
and no respondents said they did not know.
25
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Respondents who felt it would have an impact were invited to tell us what they thought the
impact would be. There were 11 responses submitted to this question. No respondents who
commented thought it would have an impact of 1, 2 or 3.
Eleven respondents that commented thought it would have an impact of 4 or 5. Over half of
these respondents raised concerns about using volunteers to replace trained staff, and the
impact this could have on the quality of support. Another respondent said that volunteers
and Family Support Workers will need to support families and social workers as a result. A
couple of respondents felt that the service is more likely to get positive results for families
when they have one consistent worker rather than being supported by multi-agencies.
A couple of respondents felt that the funding reduction would leave families with less
support. Another respondent felt that more children will go into care, while another felt it
could increase waiting times for the service. Another respondent felt that it would have a
detrimental impact on families who need MST.
Parent and carer respondents were then asked if they believed it would have an impact, to
tell us what they think needs to happen to make sure the impact is minimal for those
affected. There were 11 responses submitted to this question. Almost half of these
respondents said that funding should be maintained so the service can continue to support
families. A couple of respondents said that it is important that the right services are being
used for the right family. Another couple of respondents said that trained professionals,
rather than volunteers, should be used to support families, while conversely another
respondent said that the voluntary sector should be used to mitigate the impact of the
funding reduction.
Other mitigations suggested included more support from Social Services and seeking funding
from alternative sources. One respondent was concerned that more children will end up in
care, whilst another made a plea not to dilute the service.
Respondents were then invited to put forward any alternative solutions or suggestions to
the proposed budget reduction. There were five responses submitted to this question, with
no common themes. One respondent suggested using the voluntary sector to ensure
families are still supported. Another respondent said that therapists and Family Support
26
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Workers need to work together to support families. One respondent said that funding
should be maintained if possible, and if not, that the number of sessions per week should be
reduced but made more effective. Another respondent suggested the end of tax avoidance
of major firms. Finally, one respondent simply said that they thought it was shocking, and
that it would lead to increased costs in other areas.
Parent and carer respondents were then asked what one thing they would like to see
improved about the Safeguarding Intervention Services. There were 11 responses submitted
to this question. Respondents most frequently said that nothing needs to improve, and that
they value the service and the support it has provided to their families. Three respondents
said that waiting times should improve and that interventions should happen sooner. Other
improvements mentioned included better record keeping; continuity and consistency; and
that the service should continue. One respondent said “don’t know”.
Respondents were then asked if there is anything they thought the services should stop
doing that would help improve the services. There were 11 responses submitted to this
question. Most respondents said that there was nothing that should be stopped to improve
the services, with one respondent saying they are very much needed. One respondent said
they should stop wasting time and money, while another suggested stopping unnecessary
meetings. One respondent said not applicable.
Respondents were then asked if there is anything they thought the services should be doing
more that would help improve the services. There were 10 responses submitted to this
question. Four respondents said there was nothing more that should be done to help
improve the services. Others provided a wide range of comments. These included that what
is needed is action, not lots of meetings; that more money should be invested in the service;
and that the service needs to listen to parents. Other improvements suggested included
having more qualified people; add two sessions per week for reassurance for families; and a
comment that the respondent’s current social worker is very understanding and has gone
above and beyond to support their children. One respondent referred to a response to an
earlier question.
Parent and carer respondents were then invited to make any other comments about the
Safeguarding Intervention Services. There were nine responses submitted to this question.
Respondents who made further comments were overwhelmingly positive about the services.
Two respondents said that MST has been “brilliant” and that it has helped their families so
much. Another respondent said that there needs to be more of Catch 22 and MST and that
the services should expand, not reduce, while another respondent said they had a positive
experience of MST and would recommend it to others. Five respondents said they had no
further comments.
27
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
The below WordCloud demonstrates the most frequent words respondents mentioned
whilst answering the above question:
Parent and carer respondents were asked to provide their postcode to help us gain an
understanding of where respondents live. A total of 13 valid postcodes were submitted.
These demonstrated that there was a spread of responses from families living in each district
and borough of Northamptonshire, with a particular concentration in two urban towns. We
have not provided further details within this report to ensure respondents’ anonymity is
retained but have shared this data with Children First Northamptonshire.
3.1.4 Children and young peoples’ feedback
The following section is a summary of the questionnaire feedback provided by the two
children and young people questionnaire respondents.
Children and young people respondents were asked the name of the town or village where
they live to help us gain an understanding of where respondents live. Both respondents
provided this information but we have not provided further details within this report to
ensure respondents’ anonymity is retained but have shared this data with Children First
Northamptonshire.
28
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0Consultation on the Targeted Safeguarding Intervention Services 2020 – Analysis Report
Respondents were then asked which services have supported them. One of the respondents
said Family Intervention Services (Action for Children) and the other respondent did not
know.
Children and young people respondents were then presented with a list of four statements
about the services and were asked how the Safeguarding Intervention Services treat them
regarding each of the service providers.
When asked about the Family Intervention Services (Action for Children), both respondents
said they agreed with all of the following four statements presented to them:
Staff listen and understand my personal circumstances
Staff treat me with respect and dignity
Staff made me feel trusted
Staff tell me about what is happening
However, it should be noted that in the previous question only one of the children and
young people respondents identified themselves as knowingly used this service.
When asked about the Multi Systemic Therapy Services (Cambs and Peterborough NHS
Foundation Trust), only one respondent provided feedback and they agreed with all of the
same four statements mentioned above. However, similar to the above, in the previous
question none of the children and young people respondents said they had used this service.
Similarly when asked about the Rapid family intervention and Appropriate Adult Service
and PACE transfer service (Catch 22), one respondent answered and said they agreed with
all of the same four statements mentioned above although no respondents said they have
used this service.
Similarly to parent and carer respondents, children and young people respondents were
then asked if they felt the involvement of the Safeguarding Intervention Services has had a
29
Consultation, Equalities and Accessibility Team v1.0You can also read
