Agenda item

Poppy Reddy, Head of Service – Court and Children with Disabilities, presented the report. Due to unforeseen circumstances, Vikram Hansrani, Assistant Director of SEND & Inclusion, was not in attendance. It was agreed that any questions from the Committee which Poppy was not in a position to answer would be forwarded to Vikram for his response after the meeting.

The report highlighted the services available to residents and local authority support available to adults and children with autism. Members were informed that the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Service and Inclusion Service in Hillingdon consisted of three strands – SEND, SEND Advisory Service and the Educational Psychology (EP) Service. The Committee was advised that the latter was a very popular service. There were two primary referral pathways into the EP Service – statutory and traded.

In terms of Statutory Services, the first point of contact for families was the Early Help Team within the Multi Agency Support Hub (MASH). All staff were appropriately trained to have an understanding of autism and how to help families. Where a child had a disability which met the eligibility criteria for specialist or statutory intervention, the cases were referred to the Children with Disabilities Team (CWD) which consisted of 8 qualified social workers and two family support workers. Following a holistic assessment and identification of need, families were supported via a bespoke Child in Need Plan that was reviewed 6-monthly. A package of support was considered within the Plan which could include:

·         Social Worker support, advice, advocacy and guidance – different communication methods were employed to include play, visual aids, sensory items and electronic devices. During the lockdown period, tablets had been provided to children and families for their use;

·         Direct payments and agency packages to enable families to purchase services directly. A personal budgets policy would soon be launched – this would give families more choice and independence in choosing services;

·         Short breaks to give carers a break and to enable the young person to develop different relationships and learn new skills;

·         From October 2020, Harrow Mencap had been granted the contract to deliver short breaks in Hillingdon – this included holiday and weekend programmes. During lockdown, Harrow Mencap had assisted the local authority by providing virtual activities, art activities, singing etc – these had been popular initially but did not give families the break they really needed;

·         Hillingdon had one excellent in house respite resource - Merriefield House Resource Centre which offered overnight stays to give families a much-needed break;

·         Referrals to targeted services.

A number of other community resources were tapped into to offer support to families, short breaks or activities including HACS, and CASS. A Home from Home option was being explored whereby foster carers would provide respite care in their own homes.

The CWD team worked with young people until the age of 18 at which time they would transition into adult services if they met the criteria. A transition panel met on a monthly basis and young people were introduced to the panel from the age of 14 to ensure a smooth transition. Those young people who did not meet the criteria would be signposted to other activities and services. LAC children would have local authority involvement until the age of 25.

Members enquired whether Children’s Social Care statutory services were assessed and benchmarked against those of other local authorities.  It was confirmed that the service provided by Hillingdon was deemed to be very good - a lot of positive feedback had been received. In terms of costs, it was very difficult to provide accurate figures since the provision was based on individual need and varied hugely – there was no cap on expenditure. There was no waiting list at present – all the young people had an allocated social worker. However, it was noted that not all young people with disabilities fell under the remit of the CWD Team.

The Committee welcomed the report but commented that more data would have been helpful. Clarification regarding the chart on page 12 of the agenda pack was requested as this was somewhat unclear and appeared incomplete. It was agreed that this request would be passed to Vikram Hansrani for further clarification after the meeting. Vikram would also be asked to provide clarification regarding referrals into the Educational Psychology Service – were these being actioned speedily, how many young people were still waiting and how did Hillingdon compare with other local authorities?

Members were pleased to note that approximately 80% of the young people with ASD who had graduated from the supported internships were now in full time employment. It was agreed that, following the meeting, Vikram would be asked to provide further information as to the number / percentage of young people who took up the supported internships initially.

Councillors requested a pie chart or graph to demonstrate the range / different types of autism. It was agreed that this would be explored further by Democratic Services.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that, prior to the pandemic, a representative of the benefits service had been co-located in the Civic Centre to provide benefits advice to the leaving care cohort and to assist social workers in supporting families with members with ASD; particularly in relation to accessing benefits which was a complex area.

Members enquired how EHCPs were monitored and tracked. It was confirmed that EHCPs were reviewed annually to ensure they continued to meet the need; they would be updated as required.

In response to further enquiries from the Committee, it was agreed that Vikram would be asked to clarify what additional resource provision within secondary settings to meet the needs of CYP with ASD was currently being explored and who was being consulted on this (as mentioned on page 12 of the agenda pack). Members were informed that Vikram Hansrani chaired a special schools’ meeting once a month – one of the issues discussed was how the local authority could support these schools. Vikram would be asked to provide further clarity on this.

The external witnesses (representatives of the Hillingdon Parent Carer Forum - HPCF) were invited to provide further information regarding their own personal experiences.

Georgie Bhad addressed the Committee confirming that the HPCF was a small steering group in Hillingdon which aimed to be the voice of parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Parents were surveyed and asked about their experiences and the information was fed back to the local authority. It was noted that parents were often quiet when things were going well and more vocal when they were having difficulties. Members were informed that parents felt the criteria to access the type of help set out by Poppy in her report were high in Hillingdon – Georgie’s own son attended a special school and had moderate learning difficulties but did not qualify for such support. Short breaks could be accessed but were payable. An EHCP had been in place for her son for many years but it was noted that available services in the Borough were restricted and demand outstripped supply. Waiting lists to be diagnosed with autism were very long and it was often difficult to meet the criteria for an EHCP.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that local criteria were based on central Government advice. It was agreed that Democratic Services would attempt to source further information regarding the local criteria to access additional support services and a comparison with those of neighbouring boroughs.

Leanne Williams of HPCF addressed the Committee confirming that an ‘ELSA’ was an Emotional Literacy Support Assistant. Leanne commented that, in Hillingdon, the EP service, Schools’ Advisory Service and support in special schools for children with ASD were very good. It would be useful to have more information regarding the number of ASD students in Hillingdon, the number that access Poppy’s service and the level of students that needed EHCPs. It was felt that many schools did an excellent job in terms of monitoring and reviewing EHCPs; however, this was not the case in all schools. Where problems arose, the systems and processes were in place to escalate these, though they were not always dealt with speedily.

Aisha Richardson-Long addressed the Committee informing Members that she was the mother of two children with special needs and had recently managed to secure an EHCP for her son. It was confirmed that her children attended special schools but did not meet the criteria to access the services outlined by Poppy. Ms Richardson-Long praised the level of support available within the special schools attended by her two children. However, the Committee was advised that, when their children first received a diagnosis of ASD, many parents struggled to cope and needed more guidance and help which was difficult to access. It was felt that more support should be made available to those children who did not meet the critera for Poppy’s service so they did not miss out. In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Richardson-Long confirmed that she had not initially received the guidance she needed from the local authority. She had found SENDIASS to be excellent and very supportive; however, it had taken her a long time to access the level of support she needed which had been extremely stressful.

Members enquired how the HPCF service linked in with the Council. It was confirmed that HPCF was a statutory service - all local authorities had to offer an information and advice service for local residents.

Members acknowledged that, in terms of special schools, the provision in Hillingdon was excellent. Clarification was sought as to how mainstream schools were managing in terms of those children who did not meet the criteria to attend special schools, did not qualify for an EHCP and were falling beneath the radar. It was confirmed that mainstream schools were in receipt of SEN support funding to support these young people. It was acknowledged that it was difficult for schools as autism was a very wide spectrum which presented itself in a variety of ways and children with ASD had differing needs. However, if mainstream schools could handle this more effectively, there would be less need for EHCPs. Parents often felt an EHCP would provide some leverage to get the level of support and help their child needed.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that, in her time of need, there had been no support available from the local authority for Aisha as the mother of children with special needs.

The external witnesses from HPCF were thanked for attending the meeting and for their useful contributions to the discussion.

RESOLVED That the Committee:

1.    Gave consideration to the information provided in the report; and

2.    Sought the views of witnesses and asked any necessary questions in support of the Committee’s review.