Dartford Young Persons Team

Report
Dartford Young Persons
Team Workshop
Marie Gerald
Housing Options & Private Sector Manager
Dartford Borough Council
Sabine Voigt
District Manager Dartford
Children’s Social Services
Background
 R v London Borough Southwark (Southwark Judgement) – changed
the way 16/17 year olds were typically dealt with
 Since 2007 all Kent housing authorities and children’s services
authorities have followed a joint protocol (reviewed in 2010)
 In 2010 Brent Council’s Children & Families Team and the Housing
department piloted a co-located multi-agency team to assess the
needs of 16/17 year olds with Homeless Prevention being a focal
point of activity.
 80% homelessness was prevented within this client group
during the pilot period, without accommodating and continues
to be a success.
 Following a presentation from Brent Council, Dartford Borough
Council, Children’s Specialist Services alongside the
Adolescence Resource Centre, Dartford YMCA Thames
Gateway and Dartford Connexions agreed to initiate a pilot for
Kent – this started in October 2011
 Would be based on the Brent model and a visit to Brent took
place in July 2011 to see how this worked on a practical level
 It was agreed that that the pilot would operate outside of Kent’s
joint protocol
 Phase two of the pilot started in March 2012 and is on-going
Aims of the procedure
The primary objective is to keep 16/17 year olds living
at home with their families to improve their chances of
employment, education, health and wellbeing. In cases
where families can not be held together, we are
encouraging improved communication between young
people and their families which will limit ongoing risk
of homelessness and isolation (LB Brent March 2011)
Who is in Dartford’s Young
Persons Team?
The ‘Lead Professionals’ are:
Senior Homeless Prevention Officer from Dartford
Borough Council’s Housing Options Team
Social Work Assistant from the Children’s Specialist
Services
Both based at the Civic Centre that made joint working
easier
Representative from ARC – covers Wednesday’s and
ad-hoc
However, there is strong support
from:
ARC
YMCA Thames Gateway
Connexions
Other agencies contributions are also key
to the schemes success
Where should a young person go?
• Primarily the Civic Centre
Can also go:
• YMCA Thames Gateway
• Dartford Connexions
What happens next?
• The YP or professional will complete an
initial enquiry form
• The YP is given information about the
process – leaflet
• Information is gathered by Housing &
Children’s Specialist Services
• Any early safeguarding issues are
identified
What happens next?
• YP interviewed at Civic Centre – YMCA
available if YP wants neutral location
• The issues at home are identified
• Home visit to parent or primary carer takes place
for responsive mediation if at all possible on the
day
• Joint action plan is put into place
• Connexions referral is made – Intensive Support
Advisor is allocated
• Further referrals made where necessary e.g.
mediation service
• Cases put onto SKWO (Secure Kent Workforce
Online)
• Regular contact with both YP and primary carer
• Fortnightly case review meetings – includes lead
professionals and their line managers
• Monthly review meetings – all partners
• Case only closed when YP and/or primary carer
requests it and professionals satisfied that crisis
is resolved sustainably.
Flow chart process
16/17 Single Clients in housing
need present to Civic Centre,
Connexions or YMCA
Interview with the YP
takes place at either
Civic Centre or the
YMCA (same day)
Contact made with
excluder and home
visit takes place
(same day)
YP Team negoiate
with excluder and/
or relatives that
maybe able to assist
Gathering of information by the YP Team
Action plan agreed
between YP, excluder
and YPT (Lead
professional identified)
Tenancy & homeless records
ICS checks – includes school attendance, confirms
DOB, known to YOS etc.
Any other information that maybe relevant to YP
Mediation
Consider
CHIN if
necessary
Monitor and
review
Referrals to
other agencies
Other enquiries dependant on
nature of circumstances I.e.
school, domestic abuse, housing
issues such as overcrowding etc
The ‘Crash pad’
• An indentified unit at the YMCA Thames
Gateway (not funded by SP)
• Is not advertised
• Can be used as a ‘breathing space’
• Will have it’s own set of rules – more strict
• CHIN referral if YP in crash pad for approx
2 weeks – this can vary
What happens if the YP can’t return
home?
• Expected this to be a minimal number of cases
• Placed in the crash pad (up to 14 days)
• Child in Need referral made
• CSS advises YP of ‘options’
What are the options?
• short IA proceeding straight to COAS in
DIAT
• immediate LAC status and offer of
independent legal advice to YP
• YP chooses Sec 17 CA 89 CHIN or Sec
20 CA89 LAC
Options – cont’d
• If Sec 17 – multi agency CHIN plan is
agreed and YP is supported to apply for
benefits with the view to step down to
TAC. Housing to support with housing
options.
• Section 20 – YP gains LAC status, CSS is
lead agency and fully funding and
supporting YP – transfer to 16+ service
after 13 weeks LAC
Phase One of the
Pilot - outcomes
Success to date
(Nov 2011 –April 2012)
• 24 YP’s accessed the
service
Case Status
16
14
12
• 9 cases remain open
10
8
6
4
2
0
Open
Closed
• 15 cases closed
Who’s referring
Source of referral
Children's Specialist
Services (Duty)
4%
Housing
4%
29%
17%
YMCA
Connexions
8%
School
38%
YOS
•
•
•
•
•
•
Housing – 9
CSS – 7
YMCA – 2
Connexions – 4
Schools – 1
YOS – 1
Outcomes
Outcomes
Homelessness prevented
w ithout accommodating
4% 4%
Not accommodated prevention w ork still
ongoing
13%
54%
Not prevented accommodated under S.20
Referred to other Authority
25%
Failed to engage
• 13 immediately
returned home –
minimal or no
contact
• 6 were not
accommodated but
there is on going
high level prevention
work
• 3 YPs became s.20’s
• 1 was referred back
to their own LA
• 1 failed to engage
Reason for approach to YPT
• Majority is family
exclusion
• One case came
in for advice
• One was
incorrectly
signposted
Reason for approach to YPT
Misguided
Advice
Family exclusion
0
5
10
15
20
25
Did we know them?
• 13 cases were already
known to CSS – this
could be more
• 1 known to YOS
• 10 cases we are unsure if
they had been known to
any service
• Housing – knew a lot of
the family history
Previously known
Not know n to any
service
YOS
To CSS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
The crash pad
Crash pad usage
17%
Accessed the crashpad
Not accessed the crashpad
83%
• 4 YPs accessed
the crash pad
• 20 YPs did not
require the crash
pad
Use of the crash pad
Nights occupied
2
1
21
5
YP 1
YP 2
YP 3
YP 4
Vacant
132
• 4 YPs have accessed
• Not used until 2012
• Out of 161 potential
nights
• Longest stay 21
nights – exceptional
circumstance
Feedback from Connexions
• Reduction in the number of housing enquiries
and YPs presenting as homeless
• Greater clarity for YPs regarding local
housing procedures
• More efficient response to referrals
• Simple referral procedure
• Improved inter-agency communication
• Referrals to Connexions – easier to offer
targeted support
Costs involved – Housing
• Covered the rental cost of the unit - £91.27
per week
• Used Homeless Prevention Fund
• Cost of pilot for housing - £1916.67
Costs involved – CSS
• Identified £10k for the pilot
• Covered the support costs - £196.30 per
week
• Also covered cost of leaflets for YPs - £36
• Total cost of pilot - £4158.30
What we learnt - phase one
• Resource heavy – takes up approximately
45% of time for housing, more for CSS
• Crash pad not cost effective - support
• Needs to be advertised – County Duty and
other agencies such as YOS and schools
• Need for external referrals
• Statutory duties – judicial review
What we learnt – phase one
• Monthly review meeting essential – iron
out issues
• SWA – function did not sit well in DIAT
• Senior supervision is essential
• No Southwark arguments – new issues
arose
Pilot – phase two
• Reviewed end of March by Marie Gerald &
Sabine Voigt
• Agreed the continuation of the project
• Housing to continue to cover rental costs
of crash pad
• CSS to pay support costs ad-hoc
• Housing to supply admin support -will
help with external referrals
Pilot – phase two
• YPT to be publicised with agencies
• SWA moving to ARC – clarity re
accountability, boundaries and
preventative work
• Reviewed again in three months
Joint Stock
• Homelessness Strategy – offered 20 allocations
per year to CMHT and Catch 22 (16+) thorough
joint stock
• Opened out to CSS following Southwark
judgement
• No homeless presentations from Dartford care
leavers
• Never exceeded 20 allocations
• Will to expand if need arises
• Essential resource for CSS and Catch 22 when
a YP reaches 18 or 21
Gravesham BC
• Looked at Dartford’s pilot at the end of last
year
• Adopted the main principles – some minor
changes
• Now has own successful scheme
Any questions?

similar documents