1. Effectively supporting children, young people and families – demand for children’s social care in Ribble Valley
Insert Name
& title

2. Statistics – change in Ribble Valley over 18 months
March 2012
September 2013
% Change
Referrals *
268
414
+ 54 %
Re-referrals* 53 89
+ 68 %
Initial assessments*
190
233
+ 23 %
Core assessment* 75 58
- 23 %
S47 Child Protection Investigations* 21 42
+100 %
Initial Child Protection Conferences* 7
+200 %
Children subject to a Child Protection Plan 15
+114 %
Children Looked After 18
+20 %
* Figures based on 12 months cumulative totals

3. Referral Mix in Ribble Valley
Breakdown of referral types proceeding to initial assessment

4. Change in CP Plans, CLA and Children in Need Plans in Ribble Valley over 18 months
15 more children on CiN plans
3 more children looked after
8 more children on CP plans

5. Statistics – comparison with national rates
March 2012
Ribble Valley
September 2013
% Difference - Ribble Valley is
Referrals rate
556.8
343.3
38% lower
Re-referral rates
25.6%
21.5 %
4% lower
Initial assessments rate
398.1
193.2
51% lower
Core assessment rate
194.6
48.1
75% lower
S47 Child Protection Investigations rate
109.9
34.8
68% lower
Initial Child Protection Conferences rate
49.6
17.4
65% lower
Child Protection Plan rate
37.8
12.4
67% lower
Children Looked After rate
59.1
14.9
All rates are per 10,000 population apart from re-referrals which is % of referrals received

6. Analysis of District CP rates by deprivation (at 30th Sept 2013)
Preston
Burnley
Lancashire
Hyndburn
West Lancs
Pendle
Wyre
Lancaster
Fylde
South Ribble
Rossendale
Chorley
Ribble Valley

7. Ribble Valley

8. Analysis of District CLA rates by deprivation (30th Sept 2013)
Burnley
Pendle
Hyndburn
Rossendale
Lancashire
Preston
West Lancs
Chorley
Lancaster
South Ribble
Wyre
Ribble Valley
Fylde

10. Key Drivers Impact of economic climate Impact of welfare reforms
Increased awareness of domestic abuse and neglect
National child sexual exploitation and children missing agenda
Impact of high profile child abuse cases
“toxic trio” – substance misuse/mental health/domestic abuse
Social research unit

11. 2012 Safeguarding and LAC Inspection : GOOD
“ The effectiveness of services to ensure that children and young people are safe and feel safe is good.” “ A high rate of children and young people report they are safe and feel safe.”
2013 Neglect thematic inspection – example of good practice

12. Prevention Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub
Implementation of Early Support Hub and Lancashire Improving Futures
Working together with families
Edge of Care Services
Family Group Conference Team
Ten joint funded social work posts in schools.
Preston pilot for Early Support

13. Permanence
Central care proceedings team
Family Justice review
Adoption Reform Grant

14. MUNRO Progress Report 2012
"Child abuse and neglect need to be seen within the wider context of how society supports families. Children's Social Care is just one of many services that work with one or more family members."

15. The right response
By the right service
With the right families
At the right time

16. Key Question
How can we work together to effectively support families, reduce the need for statutory intervention and manage the demand?