Skip to content Skip to main navigation
Site map Arabic Urdu Slovenian Farsi Chinese French

Agenda item

CSE Post Abuse Services Update

Minutes:

In accordance with Minute No. 62 of 4th July, 2017, Sean Hill, Commissioning Officer, Children and Young People’s Services, and Rebecca McAlister, Strategic Commissioning Manager, submitted the actions taken to address the recommendations made at that meeting.

 

The Services had been commissioned in 2016 based on a 2015 Multi-Agency Needs Analysis.  The contracts were let in 2016 and mirrored that analysis.  3 voluntary sector providers bid and were successful for those services.

 

In July 2017, an update was provided to the Select Commission on the commissioned services.   A Service Review had been undertaken by Children’s Commissioning Team between October and December, 2017, to quantify and understand the pressures on the services. These services were open to anyone who was a victim or survivor of CSE.  It had demonstrated that joint work with the Adult Social Care Commissioning Team was vital to understand the broader context of service provision.  The key findings were set out in the report submitted.

 

Victims and survivors had been directly engaged with and their views listened to as part of the Service Review with informal meetings held at GROW and Rotherham Abuse Counselling Service (RACS) to seek their views on the impact of the services and quality of support.

 

The CYPS Leadership Team had agreed the following longer term recommendations:-

 

-          A whole system approach to commissioning support services be developed with partners (including the National Crime Agency, the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office and the Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group) to avoid duplication, maximise resources and improve the Service user experience

 

-          A needs analysis be undertaken to help inform the future commissioning of Services and to inform bids for external funding opportunities.  The needs analysis will take an asset/strength based approach to find out “what matters” to victims and survivors to victims and survivors instead of “what’s the matter”.  It would consider the accessibility of current support services (from all sections of the community) and draw together evidence and first-hand accounts of what works in helping victims and survivors begin to recover and build resilience.  The needs analysis will help identify trends for support over the next 5 years

 

-          Contracts for the post-CSE commissioned services were extended from 1st April 2019 to 30th September 2019 to allow for commissioning of a different service offer following the findings of the needs analysis and whole system mapping

 

There were some real significant funding pressures on the services and it was a very difficult situation for the service providers to manage.  Without the funding to commission the services it was very difficult to address the need.  A Service Improvement Partnership had been established to discuss the pressures as well as discussions with Adult Commissioning colleagues with regard to managing throughput.

 

The Chair commended the report but expressed disappointment that the mapping of all the provision across Rotherham, as requested last July by the Select Commission, was still missing.

 

Councillor Watson stated that it would have been hoped that the mapping of provision would have been carried out but again it was a question of capacity and the associated cost of post-abuse support which had not been met by Central Government. 

 

It was noted that Sarah Champion MP had issued a press release demanding that the Government commit funding to support survivors of child sexual exploitation in the town.

 

The Chair also stated that the Commission had raised strong concerns with regard to the needs analysis being updated when the previous update was submitted in July, 2017.  It was disappointing that it was still not in place.

 

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised:-

 

·           There had been a delay in commissioning the needs analysis due to funding.  Discussions were taking place as to whether it could be carried out inhouse or whether it should be an independent evaluation

 

·           Consideration had not been given to bringing together not only the commissioned services but the identified non-commissioned services to submit a consortium bid although providers working together would be welcomed.  The Service Improvement Partnership had been established with the current 3 commissioned services but would be willing to extend it to other providers 

 

·           There was concern of the anecdotal evidence of gaps in the post-trial support.  Flexibility of service had been discussed with providers and what they could do with the funding that was available.  However, if most emphasis was given on post-trial support then something would be lost elsewhere

 

·           Acknowledgement that the situation may be vastly different from that currently known as the only data collected was from the 3 commissioned services

 

·           Partners were now meeting and discussing the commissioned services 

 

·           Within a commissioning cycle a needs analysis would be carried out and a service recommissioned 12-18 months before a contract ended.  The contract extension was to give extra capacity and time for questions and queries given the subject matter was very sensitive and highly political

 

·           The commissioning timeline for the awarding of a tender for the needs analysis had slipped.  Discussions were still taking place regarding the right method of conducting the analysis and whether it was felt the response from victims and survivors would be better if it came from a third party

 

·           Acknowledgement that the 2015 needs analysis, completed with the involvement of a research partner, had been done as well as it could at the time with the information known.  It had been unprecedented times with nothing to draw on in terms of best practice or guidance of what services might be required

 

·           The recently established Commissioning Sub-Group came under the auspices of the Safer Rotherham Partnership and consisted of representatives from RMBC Adults Commissioning, Children’s Commissioning, NHS CCG, Adult Safeguarding, Children Safeguarding, Safer Rotherham Partnership, Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office and the National Crime Agency.  Member involvement would be welcomed

 

·           There had been no direct involvement in attempting to get other commissioning bodies around the table

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the update on CSE Post-Abuse Services be noted.

 

(2)  That a further update be submitted in 6 months’ outlining the impact of the remedial actions and the progress made on the proposed joint commissioning of CSE Post-Abuse Services with representatives of the Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group and RDaSH in attendance.

 

(3)  That clarification be provided with regard to what action was to be taken with regard to the gaps around the post-trial support acknowledging that there were limits to the funding available.

 

(4)  That Rotherham Council continues to lobby Central Government for some joined up funding.

 

(5)  That an update be provided with regard to support for the wider family of victims and survivors.

 

(6)  That the possibility of a consortium funding bid be explored.

Supporting documents: