The Cabinet Member Signing meeting was scheduled to discuss options for the future of directly provided children's homes. This included considering the closure of two residential homes and reinvesting resources into early intervention services.

Options for the Future of Directly Provided Children's Homes

The meeting was scheduled to consider options for the future of residential provision for Looked After Children provided directly by Haringey Council. The report pack outlined that the services provided by two principle homes, Home A and Home B, were under consideration. The discussion was to take place within the context of the local residential market, the planned market position determined by the North London Strategic Alliance developments, and the Council's intention to move towards an early intervention model. This model includes the development of rapid response and family intervention-based teams for families with multiple problems.

The report pack indicated that the Cabinet Member for Children, Councillor Lorna Reith, was to consider recommendations regarding the closure of Home A and Home B, with effect from 1 July 2012. A proportion of the resources from these closures was proposed to be redirected to new rapid response services, in line with the Strategic Improvement Plan. The properties of the two homes were to be removed from the Children and Young People's Service (CYPS) portfolio, with a decision to be made on their future disposal. This approach was presented as being in line with the determination to ensure all placements for Haringey's looked after children are recognised as good or outstanding by external assessment and to secure better value for money in service delivery.

The report pack detailed concerns that had been raised regarding the quality of provision and value for money at the two homes. For Home A, which has a remit for preparing older teenagers for independence, it was noted that the physical layout did not sit well with this service, and occupancy levels had been low. Home B, which aims to provide a therapeutic environment for teenagers, was also reported to have had occupancy issues, and while there was evidence of success, it was questioned whether these outcomes could have been achieved in a different setting. The report suggested that further investment in these homes would not produce the desired results within a reasonable timescale and did not represent value for money.

The strategic positioning of the homes was also discussed, with Home A considered not to be a good or sustainable resource for the increasing need for supported living arrangements for older teenagers. The report highlighted that the services offered by Home B could be provided elsewhere in the wider market or through a redesigned service provision. The North London Strategic Alliance (NLSA) was mentioned as being involved in a rethink of the local residential homes market, with Haringey taking a coordinating role. Analysis indicated that the Council's internal residential homes were not the first choice for placements, and there was sufficient resource available in the wider market.

Costings were provided, indicating that the unit costs of Home A and Home B were higher than comparable local independent sector homes. The report estimated potential savings of £319,000 in a full year for Home A and £398,000 for Home B if replacement costs were incurred at the going local independent sector rate, totalling £717,000. Potential redundancy costs for staff were also outlined.

Four viable options were presented: staying as they are, redeveloping the homes, seeking another provider to run the homes, or closing one or both homes and reinvesting in early intervention services. The report argued against staying as they are, redeveloping, or seeking another provider, and strongly advocated for the closure of one or both homes and reinvestment in early intervention services. This was linked to the emerging Strategic Improvement Plan and the planned changes to Haringey's service profile, with a dedicated new rapid response service estimated to cost around £120,000 revenue per year.

A closure programme was outlined, including informing young people and staff, notifying Ofsted, and considering the capital and asset effects of the closures, including options for the future use of the buildings such as sale on the open market, conversion to other Council uses, or lease/rent to a third party.

The report also included details of the consultation process with staff, trade unions, and service users, as well as Equalities Impact Assessments (EqIAs) for both service delivery and staff restructuring. The staff consultation raised concerns about the closure of the homes before early intervention services were fully established, the availability of foster carers, and the cost-effectiveness of private homes. Service user consultation indicated that while young people did not feel the closure would have a significant individual impact, they recognised the importance of children's homes as a resource and valued the support and friendship derived from living in them.

The report also detailed the staffing establishment for both homes and the consultation process with staff and trade unions. Comments from UNISON were attached, and the GMB did not provide a written response. The Chief Financial Officer's comments and financial implications were presented, summarising the revenue financial impact of the proposed closures. The Head of Legal Services' comments and legal implications were also included, referencing the Council's duty to provide accommodation for children in need and the implications for staff.

The Equalities Impact Assessment for service delivery highlighted that the timescales of the proposals meant that children currently resident at Homes A and B would have already moved on as part of their existing plans. The assessment analysed the profile of young people resident at the homes over the previous two years and compared it to the profile of all Haringey Children in Care. It noted that girls and young people of Asian ethnicities were over-represented in the population of young people resident at Homes A and B compared to the wider Haringey Children in Care population and the Haringey school population. The assessment also noted that children of black ethnicities, aged 11-17 years old, and males were over-represented in the Haringey Children in Care population when compared to the wider Haringey population. The report stated that the intention of the proposals was to provide care at an equivalent or higher quality than previously for the group of young people who might otherwise have been placed in these homes.

The Equalities Impact Assessment for organisational restructures affecting staff only detailed the impact on permanent staff, noting that the highest proportion of staff affected were aged 35-44 and 45-54. It also highlighted that 81% of staff affected were BME, compared to 71.2% of the wider council workforce, and 11% were declared as disabled, compared to 7% in the wider council profile. The proposals were described as a service closure, with all affected staff to be referred to the council's redeployment pool. The assessment concluded that the proposals would not significantly affect the proportion of any other protected characteristic group in the wider Children and Young People's Service directorate.