The committee made a series of recommendations about alternative provision and fostering. The committee agreed to work with Family Voice Surrey to create a handbook for parents, and recommended that all parties engaged in alternative provision have a forum to discuss key issues. The committee also recommended that Surrey County Council drive forward a new Foster Carer Charter, and actively consider a series of proposals that the Surrey County Fostering Association believe would improve recruitment and retention of foster carers.

Alternative Provision

Surrey County Council spends £18 million a year on alternative provision for 697 children and young people. Alternative provision is education outside school, arranged by local authorities or schools, for pupils who do not attend mainstream school for reasons such as exclusion, behaviour issues, school refusal, short- or long-term illness ¹. In January 2024, 323 young people were in registered alternative provision and 374 in unregistered alternative provision.

The committee heard a presentation from Family Voice Surrey, a local parent carer forum, that summarised a survey they conducted of parents of children who need alternative provision. The survey found that 82% of parents said their children had challenges with attendance due to their mental health. It also highlighted inconsistencies in the provision of alternative provision, with some parents saying that their children were not offered any, or that it was slow to be put in place. The survey's recommendations for improving the provision of alternative provision in Surrey were endorsed by the committee. The committee also heard from Councillor Clare Curran, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, who agreed that this is an area for improvement and that the Council is committed to working with Family Voice Surrey to address the issues they have raised.

The committee discussed the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman's recent review which found that in 87 out of 139 cases, Surrey County Council had not fulfilled its statutory duty to make arrangements for suitable education for children who could not attend school ². The committee heard that the Council was committed to making improvements in this area, and that the Surrey Local Area SEND Partnership Improvement Plan would address the concerns that had been raised.

The committee also heard from Jen Deerman, the CEO of Challengers, a charity that provides alternative provision for children with disabilities. Deerman described the work that Challengers does, and highlighted the challenges faced by children who need alternative provision. She told the committee that:

Almost every child that comes to us requires two to one support when they are with us because they arrive in crisis .

The committee asked the Council to provide the following information:

• The number of children and young people not routinely accessing 15 hours of alternative provision a week.
• The number of hours of alternative provision received each day by the 42% of children and young people who are not in a pupil referral unit or alternative provision academy.
• The number (and proportion) of alternative provision placements provided by the third sector.
• Data on how many children and young people who reintegrate into education following alternative provision subsequently return to alternative provision.
• Further information on the breakdown of funding for independent alternative provision.

The committee made the following recommendations:

• By September 2024, the Council should strengthen its Governance Group to ensure all parties engaged in alternative provision have a forum to discuss key issues.
• The Council should develop and implement criteria measuring the outcomes of individuals using alternative provision within six months. These should include:
  • Educational attainment.
  • Employment destinations.
  • Number of weeks spent in alternative provision before being reintegrated into education.
  • How many children and young people are successfully reintegrated into education.
  • How many children and young people return to alternative provision following reintegration.
• The Council should work with Family Voice Surrey to create a handbook for parents, and provide delivery dates for implementing the Family Voice Surrey recommendations that are entirely within its control.

Foster Carer Sufficiency

The committee heard that there are currently 439 fostering households in Surrey, but that a further 130 were needed to meet demand and to reduce the number of children being placed with Independent Fostering Agencies ³ (IFAs) outside of the county. The committee also heard that IFAs cost the Council 90% more than using its own, in-house fostering placements.

The committee heard from Sam Morris, the Secretary of the Surrey County Fostering Association. She told the committee that she believed the Council could do more to recruit and retain foster carers, and outlined a series of steps that would help. These included:

• Centralising Gateway to Resources personnel to ensure they know carers and can enable better matching.
• Working with the SCFA to update the Skills to Foster course to better prepare new carers and empower their voice.
• Reviewing the transport to contact policy to consider returning to the pre-Covid situation where contact supervisors provided transport for children and young people on contact visits.
• Making a ‘Surrey Offer’ to better promote the support offered by Surrey County Council that is unrivaled by IFAs.
• Creating a retention scheme with bonuses or a letter of recognition from the Surrey County Council Director for certain milestones.

Morris also told the committee that there is a perception that people on benefits cannot foster, but that this is a myth that needs to be dispelled.

The committee discussed the issue of children's social workers not always treating foster carers as equal members of the professional team, and made a recommendation for improvement. The committee also discussed the success of neighbouring authorities in recruiting foster carers, and asked the Council to provide information on the strategies that Hampshire and Sutton are pursuing in order to have achieved a net increase of foster carers last year.

The committee made the following recommendations:

• The Council should work with the Surrey County Fostering Association (SCFA) to agree a final version of their Foster Carer Charter by Foster Care Fortnight in May 2024, and develop an implementation plan by the end of October 2024.
• The Service should consider the 15 points that the SCFA believe would improve recruitment and retention of foster carers.
• The Safeguarding and Corporate Parenting service areas should set up a working group to explore how relationships between social workers and foster carers could be improved.

Alternative provision is education arranged for pupils of compulsory school age who, because of exclusion, illness or other reasons would not otherwise receive suitable full-time education as set out in the Education Act 1996. This refers to Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 which states that A local authority must make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them. Independent Fostering Agencies (IFAs) are private companies that are registered and inspected by Ofsted. They recruit, assess, approve, train and support foster carers who provide accommodation and care for children who have become looked after by a Local Authority. The Local Authority placing the child pays a fee to the IFA, who will then pay the foster carer.