The Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee met to discuss early help, corporate parenting, children's homes, and preparing for adulthood. The committee made several recommendations, including a call for a joint data and document management strategy for children's and adult social care, and expressed concern that there was no timeline for a final decision on whether a dedicated 16 to 18 service would be established. The committee also heard updates on Ofsted inspections of children's homes, and discussed performance data related to children's services.

Early Help Spotlight Review

The committee reviewed the Early Help Spotlight Review, initiated by Councillor Jonathan Essex in December 2024, which cited an increase in the number of children requiring additional support when they start school and a surge in the number of children with mental health needs. The review considered whether Surrey County Council should take a broader preventative approach to early help, and what the benefits might be of strengthening universal early help.

Councillor Jeremy Webster summarised the review, explaining that policy experts and third sector representatives had contributed to the review. He noted that statistical analysis showed that children's outcomes were less good in areas where early help did not exist. He also noted that while the services provided by family centres and hubs were valued, there was no formal evaluation of what they were actually doing.

Councillor Liz Townsend raised concerns about the disappearance of Sure Start centres[^1] and the increasingly patchy and fragmented nature of early help provision. She argued for the importance of universal provision, and the need to bolster it with funding.

Councillor Jonathan Essex highlighted the contrast between the excellent targeted work that the council still does, and the universal work that it no longer does to the same degree. He also noted that referrals for universal work from the health system seemed to have fallen away since Covid-19. Councillor Essex suggested that the recommendations of the review should be passed on to Steve Reed[^2], rather than Angela Rayner[^3].

Councillor Robert Hughes said that the conclusions of the review were the same as those he had drawn over a decade ago, which was that the more the council works with the voluntary sector, the more successful it will be.

Councillor John O'Reilly questioned whether there was any sympathy or attraction for a partial roll-back of the philosophy and strategy that was adopted by the council five or six years ago, and whether the ambitions contained in the review could be delivered, given the financial constraints faced by the council and the new unitary authorities[^4] that will succeed it.

Councillor Bernie Muir observed that many of her residents do not have a village to raise a child, and that they do not know what they do not know until it is too late. She argued that early intervention is an investment that will lead to better outcomes for children and families, and will steer off the multiple interventions that the council often has to take later.

Matt Ansell, Head of Early Help, said that the early help strategic partnership board was set up 18 months ago, and that one of the priorities of the board was data and information. He said that the board is now using shared data from across all of the organisations to prioritise its work.

Rachel Wardell, Executive Director of Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, provided some financial context, and invited select committee members to think together about a particular problem. She said that the targeted early help is very effective in keeping children out of the statutory services, and that is why when finances became constrained, the focus was on keeping children safely at home with their families. She also noted that for some of the children in care, the cost of their placements per week is very large, and that this all comes from the same budget as any money that might be spent on more universal early help.

The committee made the following recommendations:

1. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities understand the difference between universal early help and targeted early help, and that they recognise the value of universal early help in preventing problems from escalating.
2. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities understand how local centres identify need, and skill up to work in a changing environment.
3. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities increase the number of family hubs within each unitary, prioritising the use of existing council-owned assets.
4. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities commit multi-year funding and support to voluntary sector partners to deliver early help services.
5. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities work with health partners to improve referral pathways for early help services.
6. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities promote peer learning and support groups for parents and carers.
7. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities work with local businesses, housing and social housing providers, and clothing, furniture and food banks to provide support to families in need.
8. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities produce a guide for parents on how to access early help services.
9. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities distribute information about early help services via midwives and other health and social care practitioners.
10. That the Cabinet ensures that the new unitary authorities systematically collect data on who attends family hubs and centres, and which services they use.
11. That the Cabinet, the Chair of the Select Committee, and the Select Committee write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister for Children and Families, and the Secretary of State of the MHCLG to make the case for better funding for early help services.

Corporate Parenting Annual Report

The committee reviewed the Corporate Parenting Annual Report 2024-25[^5], which provides key performance data on looked after children and compares it with data from neighbouring authorities and national figures. The committee noted that the Surrey County Fostering Association had dissolved in March 2025.

Councillor Catherine Powell asked Councillor Jonathan Hally, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, how Surrey Foster Carers would be able to raise concerns and opportunities to improve retention and recruitment, given the dissolution of the Surrey County Fostering Association. Councillor Hally said that there were a series of interviews taking place as part of the wider review of the foster service, and that these interviews were designed to engage with foster carers themselves as individuals, but also foster carer groups.

Tina Benjamin, Head of Service - Corporate Parenting, added that the foster carer ambassadors would meet with the assistant director, which might also help them to wish to be part of it.

Councillor Bernie Muir asked if there were any barriers to people coming forward to be foster carers, and how the council was supporting the ambassador programme.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked for an update on the national housing project. Tina Benjamin said that cohort one had finished, and that six of the seven young people in that cohort had now got permanent housing. She added that 14 people had already been onboarded for the second cohort.

Councillor Jeremy Webster noted that there was quite a large efficiency in some papers that were circulated about the budget, which meant that there was a huge challenge to build up competence in terms of foster carers to save money down the line.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked what more members of the select committee and the wider membership of the council could do to ensure the Foster Carers Charter is fully embedded in everything the council does. Councillor Hally said that it was the role of elected members to promote the foster carer service, and to do everything they can to support foster carers.

Councillor Jonathan Essex noted that the report stated that the proportion of children's homes places in Surrey has decreased from 20% to 15%, and asked if that meant that 80% of children's homes placements are outside of Surrey, and 85% are now outside of Surrey. Tina Benjamin clarified that that was the proportion of children who are looked after in Surrey who are in children's homes, which is reducing towards the national average, which is much lower.

Councillor Essex also asked where the children were going if they were not in foster care or children's homes. Tina Benjamin said that they were going to supported accommodation[^6]. She added that Surrey has a higher proportion than many local authorities of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, and that they generally come to Surrey age 16 and above, and want to live in a much more independent way than in a foster family.

Councillor Essex expressed concern about the increasing use of semi-independent accommodation for looked after children, particularly those over 16. He asked if this was a national trend, and if it was the right thing to do. Rachel Wardell said that it was troubling that this was a wider trend, and that it said something about the need and complexity particularly for adolescents.

The committee agreed to note the report, and to take the following actions:

• All members of the committee should seek to see the film The Run.
• All members of the committee who have not yet signed the Foster Carers Charter should do so.
• The recommendation around the care leavers covenant should be considered.
• The committee will work out the wording of an action to capture and highlight the benefits of having in-house foster care, and the differences in terms of the quality of care that is provided.

Children's Homes and Ofsted Reports

The committee reviewed the Ofsted reports that have been issued regarding children's homes operated by Surrey County Council since the last meeting of the committee. The committee noted that two reports had been received: one inspected in August had dropped from outstanding to good, but another inspected in September had its rating raised from good to outstanding.

Councillor Ashley Tilling asked what sort of intervention the council puts in place in order to support the change of moving a home back from good to outstanding. Tina Benjamin explained that the home that went from good to outstanding was previously outstanding, and that it lost its outstanding rating because it was looking after a child who was raising significant concerns around his safety. She added that the home had then gone back to outstanding this year.

Rachel Wardell added that the council had made a decision and a commitment as a service that it would hold the children that it was worried about most as close as it could, meaning keeping them in Surrey and keeping them in its own homes.

Councillor Jonathan Essex asked what indicators the committee tracks to assess the stability of children in children's homes, and whether this is different from the children that the council places privately. Tina Benjamin said that she suspected that with a lot of time from the data team, the council could possibly look at that.

The committee agreed to write to congratulate all staff who have worked so hard to achieve the outstanding rating, and to recognise all workers in the council's children's homes who do their absolute best for the children in care.

Preparing for Adulthood

The committee received an update on preparing for adulthood, which covered progress in improving transition pathways for young people with special educational needs and disabilities as they move forward into adulthood.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked if it was a resource issue why the council was not starting transition planning from the age of 14, or whether it was purely the comment that was made in the report about 14-year-olds not being ready yet to understand the world of work. Rachel Wardell said that the reason that 14 is identified as an important point in time is because it is the start of year nine, and so the beginning to think about the kind of choices in education that are made to prepare for a work-related pathway in the future.

Councillor Bernie Muir noted that national good practice indicates that transition planning should begin at age 14, but that the current report says that for the 12 months up to July 2025, only 7.9% of the port referrals received by transition teams were individuals aged 14 or under. She asked how these were reconciled, and whether the council was aiming for referrals at 16 rather than 14 now. Rachel Wardell said that the national guidance recommends that transition planning should begin from age 14, but that the ILACS finding reflects that for the sample they reviewed, the transition work began early, was well managed, and they considered it was appropriate.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked what percentage of young people with EHCPs[^7] are progressing into employment or further education, how this compares nationally, whether there are any boroughs or districts in Surrey with significantly lower outcomes, and what can be done to address this. Rachel Wardell said that the data is not published for young people with EHCPs only, but that for the whole cohort of children with identified SEND needs, 64.4% were in sustained education, employment or training in 2022-23, compared to 62.2% nationally.

Councillor Jeremy Webster asked whether the needs of the post-16 Surrey learners with EHCPs would be fulfilled under the current sufficiency strategy, when it was forecast for all demands to be met, and what was the shortfall in places for year 11s moving to year 12 at the start of September term. Rachel Wardell said that the current post-16 capacity for those who want to go to a mainstream placement is strong, and that there are over 2,000 places available.

Councillor Catherine Powell asked what was being done and what was planned to be done to address the gaps in provision generally looking at location and capacity, the specific geographic disparities in post-16 participation, and the very high reliance on non-maintained places in Tandridge and Waverley. Rachel Wardell said that the council was working with providers to expand their provision and create new offers, but that it would be so helpful to have the powers to directly commission specialist provision.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked if the council was comfortable that the 29 mainstream schools that it relies on can actually deliver what is needed. Rachel Wardell said that the council had been working very closely with all of its mainstream schools about developing capacity, and that it was pivoting towards using mainstream schools as much more co-production and dialogue.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked how general further education colleges are managing to support the more complex needs their learners now have, given that the majority of participation post-16 with EHCPs is in general education colleges. Rachel Wardell said that the council has a process in place where for everyone who is a Surrey resident who is attending a GFE college, it provides £300 of funding to make sure that the annual review is hosted and properly organised, and for those where they meet the threshold for the high needs block, it supports that as well.

Councillor Jonathan Essex asked to what extent the council has post-16 special needs units going into secondary schools, and how much of the £740 million from government in specialist provision on mainstream school sites is for post-16. Rachel Wardell clarified that the £740 million is a national budget, and that £16 million was made available for Surrey, which can be used for pre- and post-16.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked when a decision would be made on whether the development of a 16 to 25 service is viable, what criteria would be used to make the decision, whether local government reorganisation creates the opportune time to do this, and how the council will ensure that the needs of this cohort are not compromised in the interim period. Rachel Wardell said that the decision to proceed was not based on qualitative and quantitative data, and that is partly why the council has stepped away from doing so to engage in other pieces of work.

Councillor John O'Reilly asked the council to take the committee through the stages of decision as to why a proposal that seemed to make sense had been changed. Suzanne Leatherland, Assistant Director, said that the issues that were identified in the audit reports would not be resolved simply by creating a 16 to 25 service, and that the more logical way around to do it is to fix those issues first, and then look at what is the optimum way of delivering this service.

Councillor Bernie Muir said that she was alarmed that the committee was still talking in the same terms as it was in 2018, and that she did not understand separating out sorting out the process and then deciding what it fits into later. Rachel Wardell said that the cohort of young people that the council is working with to whom it has a duty in children's services up to the age of 25 has doubled since the changes in the Children and Families Act of 2014, and that if the council structurally creates a team before it has established the process by which it identifies the children young people who should be included in the work of that team, it runs the risk of simply creating a pipeline that pushes children towards an adult social care function which does not have the support roles and responsibilities to them under the Care Act.

Councillor Frank Kelly asked if the transition from 0 to 25 has been fully mapped, and if the committee could get an accessible overview of that map. Rachel Wardell said that it should be 14 to 25, and that the committee could get an accessible overview of that map.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked for reassurance that those children that are not within the system are still being scooped up and helped. Rachel Wardell acknowledged the point, and said that the transitions work applies to all, and that the council will make sure it keeps an eye on it.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked when the further audit on the terrifying the comparison would happen. Claire Edgar said that it was due to have an order at the end of quarter three beginning of quarter four, and that it would have a focus on the board, not just the adults element.

Councillor Robert Hughes said that the lack of integration of the liquid logic children's system and the adults LAS system was identified as an area of concern some years ago, and asked when the business case would be developed to draw out the costs benefits and risks of integrating systems, and what the risks are if integration is delayed in the preparation the preparation for LGR. Suzanne Leatherland said that the financial element of it did not stack up, and that it was actually cheaper to re-key the data, albeit not ideal.

The committee made the following recommendations:

1. The select committee is concerned that there is no timeline for a final decision on whether a dedicated 16 to 25 service will be established. The committee recommends that in preparation for LGR, the joint transitions improvement board continues to gather all relevant information on root causes, processes, and outcomes to support the new unitary authority in establishing an integrated structure if they deem this appropriate.
2. The committee recommends that the Cabinet ensures that the findings of the sufficiency strategy feed into the 2026-27 budget.
3. The committee recommends that a joint data and document management plan is developed to mitigate the risks for transitions during this period.

Quarterly Performance Assurance

The committee reviewed the quarterly performance assurance report.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked what KPIs the cabinet review in relation to the voluntary sector and libraries, arts and heritage. Claire Edgar said that she could not comment on the libraries and heritage, but that she could provide a list of the KPIs that she reviews in relation to the voluntary sector. Liz Mills, Director for Customer, Culture and Transformation, said that she could provide a list of the KPIs that she reviews in relation to libraries, arts and heritage.

Councillor Jeremy Webster asked what the ideal caseload for a social worker is, and how close the council is to achieving this across the teams. Matt Ansell said that the ideal caseload for a social worker is between 15 and 20 children, but that it is very dependent upon which part of the service they work in, and the complexity of the particular children that they are working with.

Councillor Rebecca Jennings-Evans asked what mechanisms are in place to ensure that this performance data leads to tangible service improvements. Patricia Adlington, Practice Lead, said that the council brings the data into a range of different meetings, and that it helps practitioners to translate what that performance data means to a family and to a child.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked that given the council's overriding purpose that no one is left behind, can there be a KPI that tracks all of Surrey's children who are not in school, particularly given concern that this number continues to rise and causes are very complex.

Councillor Jonathan Essex asked what the implications are on the Surrey County Council safety valve agreement and the earmarked reserve of £144 million for the unforeseen growth in assessment requests, and how these risks are being mitigated. Rachel Wardell said that the council had declared itself headed off track in November of 2024, but that the DfE had continued to make their payments under the safety valve agreement.

Rebecca Jennings-Evans asked how all schools are being supported to meet needs without requiring EHCPs.

Councillor Catherine Carrie asked why the disadvantage gap is higher in Surrey than the national average, what is being done to improve attainment score eights for pupils with EHCPs and those with SEND support, and whether there are any specific plans to address the academic achievement gap associated with the 18 LSOAs[^8] in Surrey that are decile one in the subdomain for children and young people.