Vulnerable children in need of care not cuts, a review of the impact of Council decisions since 2011

Guest blog by Anon.
 

During the Kenton by-election in February 2011, Muhammed Butt rang my doorbell and asked me if I was going to vote for the Labour candidate. I responded by saying I wasn't sure, that it was unlikely, and he asked why.  I said was very disappointed with the Council, particularly the Labour group, who appeared to be supporting severe cuts to frontline services, which, in my opinion, would affect the most vulnerable in our community. 

Mo asked me for an example and I told him that I heard the Council were proposing to close 24 Crawford Avenue (a large 6 bedroom house that had a 1/3rd of an acre of play space and is situated in the heart of Wembley).  Incidentally, the house was bequeathed to Barnardos specifically for the use of children in need. It was leased to Brent Council for decades at a reasonable annual rent. 

The Council leased the property for decades from Barnardos without any major issues. The unit was registered to provide overnight short breaks for up to 6 children, in addition to providing valuable day care during the school holidays and at weekends for another 6 children. It also accepted lockouts and emergency child protection cases.  Those who benefited from the service were children aged between 5-18 years, who although mobile, suffered from moderate to severe disabilities, including learning difficulties and some with challenging behaviours. In addition to giving children greater opportunities to develop and socialise and through play it also gave families much needed short breaks.

 However, whilst standing in my doorway, touting for my vote, Mo Butt responded absentmindedly. He said, "Oh yes, Crawford Avenue is going to close. Ironically, this was before any official community consultations had begun.  When I raised further concerns about how disappointed I was, he proudly informed me that he was the Deputy Leader of the Council and that I should put my concerns in writing to him.

Months later, the so-called public consultations eventually began and many people put their concerns in writing. Service users took a legal challenge to the high court.  The Council continued to argue that they knew best. That they were building a 'state of the art' unit, which eventually became known as the Ade Adepitan Centre, situated adjacent to the new Villlage School in Grove Park.  Whilst the new build was being built, the Council officially closed Crawford Avenue and merged it with Clement Close, a very small respite unit for children of families who had Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) and other disabilities, designed for wheelchair users. 

 This effectively meant that the service provision was more than halved for both groups of children, as it wasn't safe for the young people to be booked in together. In addition to this, despite some basic refurbishment, the building was not fit for purpose and many families from Crawford declined to send their children to Clement.  Crawford Avenue was eventually closed in January 2012. Interestingly, months later, a pre-change of use planning application was submitted by someone, who recognised the enormous potential of this property. This was in December 2012.   For further details on this matter see LINK

Sadly, Crawford Avenue (a potential jewel in the crown of Wembley) was eventually sold by Barnardos for about £875,000 and the buyer succeeded in their application to the Council for cessation in lease for the  continued use of building as a children's home.

 Meantime, much community unhappiness developed at Clement Close as staff and service users tried to adapt to many changes in a building that was not fit for purpose.  It also appeared that more serious incidents occurred, including assaults on staff by children and in September 2012 an unhappy vulnerable child absconded.

Such incidents are of concern when you hear councillors and managers say that, 'The impact on the child must be our primary concern'.  From January 2012 to February 2013 staff, children and families endured many changes. In March 2013 Neil Macdonald (Interim Head of Service Children’s Commissioning) delivered reported to the Council on short breaks provision for Children with Disabilities. He confirmed that new Village short breaks centre was now open and had received its first children for respite care on 8 February 2013. 

 He said, "The centre was registered to provide short breaks for up to 8 children, double the capacity of Clement Close. The council was currently exploring how best to use this additional capacity" because of the low occupancy. Something, I understand, they still struggle with, possibly due to the institutional feel and poor design that cannot always accommodate the two different client groups safely.

 As for day care and after school care, I understand this has yet to be provided, despite misleading reports from Mr MacDonald to the Executive Committee.  

Further, Sara Williams (Acting Director of Children & Families) and her team, also reported to the Executive Committee in November 2013, less than a year after the closure of Crawford Avenue, that, 'The lack of appropriate children's residential care homes also hampers the council in its duty to take reasonable practicable steps to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children where it's their best interest to be accommodated locally.

It really does beggar belief that our leaders can be so short sighted. Where will the  cuts end and what impact will they really have on our community in years to come?  

ANON  

Vulnerable children may be shipped out of Brent for schooling as Council closes Primary PRU at 3 week's notice

As the Scrutiny Committee discussed setting up a Task Group to investigate how the Pupil Premium, ear-marked funds for disadvantaged children, are used in Brent schools last night, they were leafleted by staff who care passionately for an arguably even more disadvantaged group who are about to be shipped out of the borough.

The Primary Pupil Referral Unit currently housed at Ashley Gardens is for children excluded from mainstream school.  The classrooms were previously used as temporary accommodation for the primary unit of Preston Manor All-through School.

The Primary Unit came about after the Key Stage 2 (7-11 year olds)  PRU in Stonebridge was closed down at the end of Spring Term 2014 as no longer necessary. Within weeks, there were already 6 excluded children at Key Stage 1 (5-7 year olds) and Key Stage 2 in need of education. The Ashley Gardens facility was set up for them and high quality, experienced staff were recruited on the understanding that the unit would continue through the current academic year.

Brent's Primary EBD(Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties) school, Vernon House, closed some time ago and a new school opened in its place for chidlren on the autistic spectrum.

The authority has said that the classrooms are needed for children without a school place, despite Preston Park Primary having expanded, the new primary school at Preston Manor and a four form entry primary school being built at Wembley High.

Most of the Ashley Gardens children will be placed at the Family School London, in Kings Cross. This is a free school being opened by the Anna Freud Centre, with home to school transport provided for each child.

On Thursday of last week Ashley Gardens staff were told that the Unit would close by the end of this month.

Staff have major concerns about the closure decision and the way it is being implemented. This is what they said:

1. The time scale for closure is extremely rushed and risks causing unnecessary distress to children and their families.

These are amongst the most vulnerable and emotionally challenged children within our education system. Three weeks does not give us proper time to prepare them for this major change. we have an excellent team who have worked very hard to build up relationships of trust with the children and their families and the children are now settled and beginning to thrive in the unit.

We are concerned that this hasty decision, driven it seems more by the borough's need for our accommodation than by the needs of the children, will cause unnecessary emotional trauma to children who have already had more than their fair share.

2. There has been no consultation on this decision with the staff of the unit, including the Teacher-In-Charge, nor more senior staff within the Inclusion Service, and no individual case-by-case review to assess whether the provision at the Anna Freud Family School is appropriate for all the children who will be placed there.

3. We understand the longer term policy is to provide support for chidlren at risk of exclusion with the Brent School's Partnership, with the aim of preventing exclusions. This provision is still not in place. Where will any excluded chidlren be taught and supported in the meantime? This is exactly the situation that led to the formation of the unit at Ashley Gardens.

4. What about children who are excluded in spite of all the best efforts of the new provision? The Family School has only 4 places available this year in each key stage, and 4 more available next year and demand could come from anywhere across London.

The Ashley Gardens staff make a strong and professional case which clearly has the interests of vulnerable chidlren at its heart.

Brent Council's commitment to social inclusion means that there should be proper consultation with teachers, parents and professional agencies in such a situation, and at the very least a thorough Equalities Impact Assessment should be carried out.

None of this has happened and until it does, and the resulting report has been discussed and adopted by Cabinet, the closure should be suspended.

I would add a further concern about children being bussed out of the borough. They are already excluded from mainstream schools and will be further excluded by being educated far away from their home community.

Lucas: PM's 'green crap' comment betrays his contempt

Commenting on reports that the Prime Minister has dismissed fuel bill levies that fund energy efficiency measures, as “green crap”, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“These levies include funding for energy efficiency measures which help low income households cope with soaring energy prices.

“Whatever language the Prime Minister has used to describe them, his determination to roll them back says everything about his contempt for the most vulnerable, and his lack of interest in serious action to tackle climate change, or to bring down fuel prices in the long term

“By focusing the debate on green levies, which represent only a fraction of energy bills, the Government is obscuring the real reason for rising costs – which is the increasing wholesale price of gas, and the profits of the Big Six energy companies.

“If the Prime Minister really wanted to help families with their fuel bills, he’d be investing in a major energy efficiency programme to super-insulate the country’s housing stock.  This would bring nine out of ten homes out of fuel poverty, quadruple carbon savings, and create up to 200,000 jobs.”

London Green MEP Jean Lambert also  added her voice to the debate.

Ms Lambert has challenged the Prime Minster to set out some alternative proposals for reducing energy use and helping fund the next generation of clean, renewable power generation.

She said: "Given that the green taxes Mr Cameron is today reported to have described as 'green crap' are designed to reduce energy use and help pay for the next generation of power through clean renewable sources, the question is: how will he achieve those goals by other means?

"As over 60% of the rise in bills is due a rise in wholesale prices of energy from 2010 to 2012, how will bills be reduced if there is no comprehensive effort to reduce energy consumption and provide alternative, domestic renewable resources?

"There is much the Government could do to improve the way in which this money is spent in order to reduce the amount of energy people use and they should concentrate their attention there, not on cutting revenue for essential measures - unless they plan to pay for them in other ways, in which case - let's hear those proposals, if they exist."

Brent Council wants to leave Council Tax Support unchanged despite summonsing 3,300

The demonstration outside Willesden Magistrates Court

Some Brent Council consultations get more publicity than others. This one on the Council Tax Support Scheme seems a little hidden away so I thought I would bring it to your attention. The present system resulted in 3,300 people being summonsed to Willesden Magistrates Court by the Council for non-payment and a demonstration outside the court which received wide publicity. Some of those summonsed incurred extra court charges of £90 or more on top of the amount owed.

This consultation started without fanfare on November 11th and ends on December 12th.

Now believe it or not the Council, with minor changes, wants to keep essentially the same scheme despite Muhammed Butt vowing that Labour would protect the vulnerbale at last night's Council Meeting.

Below is an extract from the Council website. You can see the full consultation portal and submit your views HERE

Brent Council to separate Children's and Adult's Social Care

In March this year I spoke to the Brent Council General Purposes Committee about the proposed restructuring of departments and in particular voiced concern about  the proposal to put Children's Social Care and Adult Social Care along with Education and Health  under one Director. LINK  It would create a department where there was a risk of high profile failures regarding vulnerable adults and children. In the wake of tragedies involving the death of children and adults it was essential to have clear lines of responsibility on safeguarding.

The General Purposes Committee on November 7th will receive a report recommending separating the roles:

It was agreed that during August and September, Gatenby Sanderson (recuitment agency) would continue in their search for suitable candidates for the post of Strategic Director, Education, Health and Social Care. However, this has not proved successful. Many candidates considered the role too large and though a couple of experienced candidates were interested, we could not match their expectations in terms of salary. Director posts involving children’s social care are perceived as high risk in local government and remain the most difficult job to fill. As Ofsted’s recent Annual Report on social care indicates, there is considerable volatility in leadership and ‘one in three local authorities has had a change in their director of children’s services last year alone’. (Ofsted, 2013)

The General Purposes Committee is asked to agree to the revised structure as follows:

a. deletion of the posts of Strategic Direcor, Governance and Corporate Services and Strategic Director Education, Health and Social Care
b. deletion of the posts of Strategic Director, Adult Social Care
c. establishment of the new post of Strategic Director, Adults
d. establishment of new post of Strategic Director, Children and Young People

I welcome this move as establishing clearer and more manageable responsibilities and thus establishing a more robust safeguarding of vulnerable children and adults.

Protest at Brent Council's 'High Risk' Meals on Wheels changes

From Brent Fightback (see my previous posting on this proposal HERE)

Brent Fightback is calling a protest at the Civic Centre this coming Monday (16th September) from 6.30pm  to protest at the proposal that Brent Council hand over the delivery of the meals on wheels service to “a range of local charities, communities and businesses”.

The Brent Executive is set to approve the proposals at their meeting that evening.

Currently, the meals on wheels service is outsourced. However, rather than a proposal which would cut out the profit-makers, this proposal is purely about cutting cost (by 50%). This decision will lead to cuts in quality of the meals, and pay (are the charities/community groups using unpaid volunteers?), the council's own risk assessment evaluates "Lack of market capacity leads to service users going without meals" = High!
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s19140/asc-community-meals.pdf

ie. most vulnerable, elderly and sick could be left without access to meals!

Concern over Brent Meals on Wheels transferring to community providers

Brent Council is proposing to end Council provision of the Meals on Wheels service for the elderly and vulnerable and hand the responsibility over to community organisations. They will end the contract with the present provider Apetito which will also lose the contract for meals provision at day centres.

The Council projects that it will save more than half the costs of the present service in 2014-15 although the budget may be overspent this year because of set up costs.

One issue of concern is that the proposals are based on a pilot with Harlesden Methodist Church which eventually involved evaluations by only six users. The total number of residents receiving meals on wheels currently is 187 and 1345 have meals at day centres.

The need for meals on wheels on a geographical basis is

South (Kilburn; Queens Park; Kensal Green; Brondesbury) 27
Central East (Dollis Hill; Mapesbury; Dudden Hill) 16
Central West (Stonebridge; Harlesden; Willesden;Cricklewood) 49
North East (Alperton; Wembley; Preston; Tokyngton; Sudbury; Northwick Park) 59
North West (Barnhill; Fryent; Queensbury; Kenton; Kingsbury) 36

The day care meal requirements break down as:

 Kingsbury Resource Centre 384
John Billam 430
Elders Voice 118
Hibiscus Club 24
Aspects Unit 38
Asian Disability Alliance 5
Wise Project 250
Rendezvous Club 96

The Council suggest the following provision:

Cricklewood Homeless Concern – can cover the whole of Brent, and provide Western European/Caribbean/Indian meals
- Early Bird Catering – can cover the Wembley/Sudbury/Kingsbury/Tokyngton area and provide Western
European/Caribbean meals
- Harlesden Methodist Church – can cover Harlesden, Stonebridge and Kensal Rise and provide Western European/Caribbean/Indian meals
- Catalyst Catering – can cover Harlesden, Stonebridge and Willesden and provide Western European/Caribbean meals
- Sudbury Neighbourhood Centre – can provide for day centres only and provide Western European/Caribbean meals
- Jalaram Foods – who can cover the whole borough and provide Asian Vegetarian meals

Residents will contribute £3.50 per meal as at present but payments will be via pre-paid cards with help for those who find the system hard to manage. The Council also currently contribute £3.50.

The current meal charge to the Council via Apetito is £8.52 and they project that this will be cut to £3.50 for door to door provision and £2 for day centre provision.

The Council will put aside a contingency in case of failures by any of the new providers. Apetito staff are unlikely to qualify for TUPE so will become redundant. No redundancy costs will fall on the Council.

A risk assessment is provided by the Council.

I hope councillors give this very serious consideration. I know from personal experience with my mother that both the meal itself and the person delivering it are vitally important to the housebound. The meal and visit are often the day's major event. The quality and suitability of the meal are important to maintain physical health and the friendships that develop with the deliverer, however fleeting, are socially important. Maintaining quality of meal and quality of service across many providers is going to be a major challenge.

London Councils laments but where's the fightback?

Anti-cuts campaigners in London have been urging councils to get together with their communities to mount a challenge to the cuts imposed by the Coalition.  Most now admit that the cuts are doing real damage to and hitting the most vulnerable.  London Councils, the body representing boroughs across London,  could be the vehicle for a coordinated campaign but have been reduced to lamenting the impact while local councils quietly carry on carrying out the Coalition's dirty work for them.

If London took the lead this could be followed by other local authorities and the beginning of a national movement.

London Councils issued the following statement after the Autumn Statement:

On the basis of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, funding for local government is expected to fall by a further 2% in 2014/15 beyond the funding reductions already expected. 

Mayor Jules Pipe, Chair of London Councils says:

 ‘The capital needs 90,000 more school places for the start of the 2015 school term and the city’s housing crisis has been brought into sharp relief by the Government’s changes to the benefits regime.

‘This means additional financial pressure on London councils as they seek to ensure a good school for all London’s children and decent homes for Londoners.

‘In 2010 the Government announced a cut of 28% to local government grant. Yet the Government continues to cut the amount of funding available to local government.

‘London’s councils have been at the forefront of delivering efficiency savings while attempting to improve and protect local services.

‘The Government needs to be aware that with increasing levels of demand this level of cuts is unsustainable and presents a significant level of risk to delivering those services vital to ensuring that London is a world class competitive city. The Government needs to realise that if London doesn't work, the country doesn't work."