Agenda item

Ian Thomas, Strategic Director, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, gave a presentation on Rotherham’s Improvement Journey. 

Ian’s presentation covered the following areas: -

·           There were 56,000 young people under the age of 18 in Rotherham;

·           The Children and Young People’s Services Directorate Senior Leadership Teams structure and functions were shared.  There was a permanent Strategic Director, Deputy Strategic Director and four Assistant Director level posts within the Directorate;

·           Statistics as of June, 2016, were shared;

·           Implementation of a new IT system;

·           There was a new, more robust, Quality Assurance Framework;

·           Establishment and embedding of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) within the Directorate and childrens’ workforce;

·           2014 Ofsted inspection and the improvement journey since;

·           At the time of the 2014 inspection the response within 24 hours of referral was at 37%.  This was due to lack of performance management, weak governance, leadership and social work capacity.  Rotherham had the people, what was needed was that they be freed up to do great work;

·           Excellent management information support was continuing to improve with a Head of Service appointment and the appointment of a Critical Friend;

·           Evolve Child Sexual Exploitation Team – multi-agency – was due to launch later in the month;

·           CSE practice was consistently rated as Good;

·           Operation Clover had demonstrated the strength and power of wrapping support around victims and survivors of CSE;

·           There were ongoing and linked cases relating to recent/current and historic CSE;

·           Chelsea’s Choice – high numbers of children and young people reported being better prepared to deal with potential CSE after viewing the play;

·           Intensive work required in CSE cases necessitated low caseloads;

·           Any Social Worker with a caseload of over 22 was monitored weekly to ensure that their cases were appropriately allocated;

·           Rotherham was ensuring that the working conditions and pay and benefits for Social Workers were as supportive and competitive as possible;

·           Quantitative statistics;

·           Qualitative feedback was also important – Jessica’s quote about working with the Local Authority showed the victims and survivors were viewing the Local Authority as a more supportive presence;

·           Workforce development was a continuing priority. 

Councillor Clark thanked Ian for his very comprehensive introduction to the areas covered within the improvement journey theme. 

Councillor Short asked about numbers of Rotherham’s children and young people being sent to out-of-authority provision. 

Ian responded that this was around 35%, which was too high.  Of this number, 65% were placed within 20 miles.  Just over 100 children were placed within 50 miles.  8 children were placed over 100 miles away. 

Ian outlined the potential issues with children being placed at a distance from the Borough.  These included a potential to lose line of sight of the child and cost implications of the specialist placement and resources required to visit the child as required.  The Service’s ambition, supported by the Cabinet Member, was to have 100% placed within 20 miles and a developing strategic commissioning strategy would support this.   

Councillor Jarvis asked what the reasons for delays in assessment were. 

Ian explained that there were no longer any assessment backlogs.  This had dropped from 315 to zero cases awaiting assessment.  Quality of assessment was now the focus for the Service and all stakeholders.   

Councillor J. Elliot asked how the children classed as ‘Children in Need’ were safe.  Were these children in addition to the numbers of Looked After Children?

Ian explained that the ‘Children in Need’ cohort was in addition to the Looked After Children figure.  Work was underway to ensure that all children subject to any form of Child Protection Plan were appropriately classified and supported.  

Councillor Elliot asked about how budget efficiencies could be achieved without jeopardising childrens’ safety. 

Ian explained that each decision needed to be made in the best interests of the child; some children’s best interests were to be placed at a greater distance and this would be documented with a detailed risk assessment. 

There could be a perverse incentive to move children to cheaper cost placements purely for financial reasons.  However, this was not going to happen in Rotherham.  Changes to placements were only made for the child’s best interest and not to save money/resources. 

Councillor Cusworth asked about expectations surrounding management supervision in Rotherham.  She asked what a good quality Service for children and families looked like?

Ian was confident that supervision was done as a matter of routine and was known as an expectation within Rotherham. 

Ian explained the role of the Practitioner Board, the input of the Principal Social Worker and Senior Leadership Team ‘back to the floor’ visits.  Committed staff who were all engaged was important.  Importantly, staff knew who to go to if their supervision was not being sustained. 

Councillor Khan asked about the role of Elected Members in referrals.  He also asked about the role of Schools. 

Ian encouraged Elected Members to raise their concerns with him.  There were limits on what could be shared due to data protection but anything raised would be treated seriously and investigated.  A working protocol in relation to this was being produced. 

Councillor Short asked what steps were in place to help children stay in stable placements post-16.  If care was proving safety and stability it was important to maintain this, to develop parity between LAC and their non-looked after peers. 

Ian referred to the responsibility on Local Authorities to some Looked After Children extending up to 25 in some cases.  There was a range of Statutory Responsibilities in relation to Looked After Children and Care Leavers.  Question for all practitioners and stakeholders was ‘would this be good enough for my child’?  The majority of parents would not kick their own child out at 16, so this should not happen for LAC. 

Councillor Clark asked if any trends were identified within Child Protection cases? 

Ian explained that the trend in Rotherham matched the national concern: - neglect.  There was a clear correlation between poverty and neglect.  Physical, sexual and emotional abuse were also factors but not to the same extent.  There were varying degrees of severity involved in abuse cases and this governed the Services’ response and plans.  

Councillor Beaumont asked whether Ian agreed if the ideal for all young people in care was for them to be as independent as possible. 

Ian agreed that it was about preparing young people for adulthood.  Some young people required extra support to get to the level of independence. 

Ian confirmed that the journey had been a real team effort to this stage.  There was much more to be done, but this would happen, he was clear about this. 

Councillor Clark thought that Ian’s comment about freeing up staff to work was significant.  It was obvious that the Service was freeing up staff so that they could focus on the front line work. 

Resolved: -  That the information shared be noted.