1. Dawn Williams & David Ward Commissioning for children at the 'edge of care'

2. HOW MUCH CHOICE DO LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE ? ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THEY LOOK AFTER

6. Helping to exercise choices more transparently: - Evidence - Research - Best Practice

7. Set Up Setting the Baseline Service Analysis Service Redesign Month 12-45-67-9 EstablishingCapturingAnalysingDeveloping

8. EstablishingCapturingAnalysingDeveloping Ownership and governance Commitment of DCS and Lead Member Steering Group Current numbers, needs and outcomes Key need groups and characteristics Current care decision patterns including duration and transition into permanency Who would be appropriate for Evidence Based Programmes Current decision making for children at the edge of care Alignment of services to needs Current service commissioning Potential cost savings Targets to enable better professional management Quick wins within the system Better and more consistent decision making Use of Evidence Based Programmes Front-line Learning and Development

9. Who are the children you look after? What are their stories?

10. Matching Needs and Services Parents engaged in dysfunctional and violent relationships (n18) Children with neglectful parenting and substandard living conditions (n=32) Adolescents with significant behaviour difficulties (n=22) Mixed group, where the presence of additional risk factors is low (n=27)

11. Some Actions – existing services - Review of domestic violence services - Re-commission FIP service - Review current Triple P provision - Investigate increased support for parents with learning disabilities - Review of cases in Group 4 - Review current provision by CAMHS - Findings of 'Going Home' exercise

12. Some Actions - new services - Agree new Panel structure - Commission FFT - Solutions Team - Communications - Support for staff (IRO service and L&D) - Develop information systems to track each child - Evaluation design of EBPs

13. Control Group (N=313) Individual Therapists (N=387) Group Mean (Average) 18-Month Unadjusted Major Recidivism Percentage 17 12 55 47 42 14 34 18 23 31 28 14 26 17 33 23 14 33 22 17 11 0 C1234567M8910111213M1415161718M19202122232425M Not Competent Borderline Competent Highly Competent 8 18 20 43 47 63 26 FFT Results