The Children and Young People Committee met to discuss the progress of the Families First Pathfinder programme and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan. The committee received an update on the Families First programme, which aims to improve early intervention and safeguarding for children and families, and reviewed the Youth Justice Strategic Plan for 2026-2029.

Families First Pathfinder Programme

The committee received a comprehensive update on the Families First Pathfinder programme, a significant reform initiative aimed at fundamentally changing how social care services support children, young people, and families in Redbridge. Daniel Phelps, Executive Director for Children's Services, and Sharon Springer, Assistant Director for Children's Social Care, presented the findings one year after the programme's implementation.

The Families First reform is described as one of the most fundamental changes to social care delivery since the Children Act 1989. It sits alongside other significant reform programmes, including SEND reforms and Best Start in Life initiatives. The programme's design was informed by learning from serious case reviews of children who had died due to abuse and neglect, highlighting consistent failures in inter-agency communication, workforce experience and skills, adherence to procedures, and inadequate resources.

The core of the Families First reform is built on four pillars:

• Family Help: Integrating targeted early help and statutory child in need services into a seamless pathway.
• Child Protection: Strengthening child protection decisions through specialist multi-agency arrangements.
• Family Networks: Involving family networks earlier in children's plans to draw on their expertise for sustainable support.
• Partnership: Fostering stronger shared leadership and accountability across safeguarding partners.

The intended experience for families is to navigate services more easily, avoid repeatedly recounting their story, and experience consistent support from practitioners.

Redbridge entered the programme from a position of strength, with its services rated as outstanding. However, the local context, including a large child population, significant child poverty, and substantial unclaimed benefit entitlements, alongside housing insecurity and domestic abuse, indicated a need for a more efficient and effective system. The previous model involved families navigating multiple different services, leading to step-ups, step-downs, and hand-offs, often requiring new assessments and allocations.

The redesigned model introduces a single Family Help front door, five integrated Family Help teams, and a single lead practitioner who stays with the family throughout their engagement. For child protection concerns, a centralised Multi-Agency Child Protection Team (MACPAT) provides specialist oversight and shared decision-making.

Early intervention is now practical and immediate. In 2025-26, 7,765 contacts were signposted or diverted from Family Help teams. Additionally, 227 parents received benefits and debt advice, 351 accessed parenting groups, and 410 contacts progressed directly to the Reach Out Domestic Abuse Service. Partner professionals, with support from Family Help coordinators, conducted family help assessments, addressing issues such as poverty, housing, parenting, and low-level domestic abuse at an early stage.

The MACPAT brings together specialists from social care, police, and health to share and analyse information collectively, providing immediate specialist oversight. This approach has led to reductions in strategy discussions and Section 47 enquiries.

After one year, emerging evidence suggests the system is becoming more proportionate. While contacts increased by 9%, statutory assessments reduced by 29%, and repeat Section 47 enquiries decreased by 47.8%. The number of cases experiencing multiple moves and pathway changes also reduced significantly, with four fewer children entering care out-of-hours.

The programme also focuses on embedding family-led decision-making, with 132 facilitated family group decision-making meetings held. This approach involves families in developing support packages to mitigate concerns and reduce the need for statutory intervention.

The wider impact of the reform includes a reduction in the vacancy rate from 18.3% to 9.5% and a decrease in staff turnover from 28.7% to 13.8%. Financially, £324,000 in savings were identified in the 2025/26 financial year, with a further amount budgeted for 2026/27. Redbridge's learning from this programme has also informed national rollout and guidance, with the council recognised as a trusted partner. An Ofsted report highlighted that children and families receive consistently helpful responses.

The next phase of the programme involves embedding the practice model, completing the enabling infrastructure, and maintaining transparent member oversight. Key areas for the future include embedding consistent Family Help practice, enabling a single workflow in the LCS system, assuring the tracking of demand, timeliness, outcomes, workforce, and safeguarding quality, and learning from feedback and national developments.

Councillor Martin Sachs raised concerns about funding issues impacting the project and the potential loss of specialisms in more generic teams. Sharon Springer clarified that grant funding had enabled the testing of new approaches without impacting the council's core budget for statutory functions. She explained that specialisms are now concentrated within specific teams, such as the contextual safeguarding team, and that the salad bowl analogy was used to describe how different professionals co-exist and work productively together.

Councillor J. Uddin inquired about provision for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Daniel Phelps acknowledged this as a significant question that would be addressed in future work plans, noting that Redbridge schools are among the most inclusive in the country.

Councillor Josiah Moseley asked for a breakdown of the projected savings, which were attributed to preventing children from entering care through embedding family-led decision-making and providing support packages. Councillor T. Jeyaranjan questioned the £28 million in estimated unclaimed benefits and the plan to help families access them, given the council's financial situation. Daniel Phelps explained that this figure was used to highlight the potential impact of addressing poverty and that welfare benefit debt advisors were employed to assist families at the front door.

Councillor Monika Patel asked about programmes in other councils, current figures for unclaimed benefits, and the reasons for reduced staff turnover. It was noted that Redbridge is part of a community of practice with other Pathfinder councils and that they are learning from each other. Current figures for unclaimed benefits were not available, but the council is actively working to address this. The reduction in turnover was attributed to staff satisfaction with their teams, managers, and the council's workforce development offer.

Councillor Leontia Brewer asked about the integration of schools into the new system and how information is shared. It was explained that Family Help Partnership Coordinators work closely with schools, attending DSL forums and headteacher meetings. Schools are a key route for identifying emerging needs, and the enhanced front door makes it easier for them to know where to direct referrals.

Councillor F. Haque asked about the ease of access to help for young people and whether they are treated fairly. Daniel Phelps stated that children from different backgrounds are treated fairly through a consistent response to need and threshold application. However, he acknowledged that disproportionality exists within the youth justice system, particularly for children from black and mixed heritage backgrounds.

Councillor M. Patel raised concerns about potential racial bias in police arrests and the broader societal debate around inclusivity and supporting all children. Daniel Phelps assured the committee that addressing disproportionality and ensuring anti-discriminatory, anti-racist practice is a priority for the local authority, focusing on building trust and confidence with young people.

Councillor Huck inquired about the placement of the Multi-Agency Child Protection Team (MACPT) in relation to CAMHS and how families can access mental health support. It was clarified that MACPAT is based at Linton House and works alongside the Family Help front door, with health practitioners able to liaise with CAMHS. Mental health support sits outside the Family Help front door, but staff can guide families to the appropriate services. Data on ethnicity breakdowns of service users and support provided is available.

Councillor Aksala Patel requested further information on reports and policies related to embedding anti-racist practice in youth justice, including discrimination based on mental health and SEND. It was confirmed that this information would be provided to the committee.

Councillor J. Uddin followed up on the accessibility of information for parents with English as an additional language and the implementation plan's deadlines. It was explained that the Find website and the Redbridge website are being improved to enhance self-service and accessibility. The implementation plan's timescale is set by the Department for Education, with full implementation required by the end of the financial year.

Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2026–2029

The committee also received an overview of the Redbridge Youth Justice Strategic Plan for 2026–2029. The plan outlines the priorities for preventing offending and supporting positive change for children, families, and victims.

Key data points highlighted include a record low of 40 first-time entrants to the youth justice system in 2025-26. While three children received custodial sentences, there were no children serving custodial sentences at the time of the plan's compilation. Serious violence offences reduced by 42% over three years. Mental health was identified as the most frequent need among young people, followed by speech, language, and communication difficulties, exploitation, and substance use. Notably, 30% of children supervised had SEND, and 25% of those looked after were by other local authorities.

The plan identifies six priorities: high-quality practice, education and inclusion, participation and co-production, a coordinated victims' offer, equity and disproportionality, and partnership accountability. The committee was encouraged to consider how children and families can have greater influence, whether arrangements are sufficient to respond to identified needs, and how actions will address disproportionality and improve fair access to support.

Daniel Phelps and Sharon Springer addressed questions regarding the plan, including the issue of disproportionality. They acknowledged that discrimination exists within the system and that the local authority is committed to tackling it through anti-racist and anti-discriminatory practices. The importance of building trust and confidence with young people who come into contact with the police and youth justice services was emphasised.

Children and Young People Work Plan 2026-27

The committee reviewed the draft work plan for the 2026-2027 year. Following discussions on avoiding overlap with the Scrutiny Committee's work, the committee resolved to focus on three strategic priorities: Education Outcomes, Standards, and Attainment; Engagement with Children, Young People, Schools and Stakeholders; and Early Help, Safeguarding and Youth Justice.

The next meeting of the Children and Young People Committee was scheduled for 26 November 2026.