Agenda item

Mel Meggs, Deputy Strategic Director, presented a summary of performance under key themes for Children’s Social Care and Early Help Services as at the end of January, 2017.

It was noted that this was the first performance report for the Select Commission since the implementation of the new Liquid Logic case management system at the end of October, 2016.  The changeover had created a number of challenges in terms of data quality and reporting but significant progress had been made.  However, teams were still adjusting to new recording requirements and addressing data migration gaps.

The report highlighted examples of good and improved performance and key areas for further improvement.

Discussion ensued on the report with the following issues raised/clarified:-

-          Social Worker caseloads had reduced again across all the teams and were now within the normal bounds – only one with a caseload of 25.

-          Currently there was only one Social Worker and one Team Manager vacancy.

-          Had there been an improvement since the extra staff had started in the amount work carried out?  The caseloads had reduced.  The Service had seen its first outstanding audit and the Looked After Children Service had had its first outstanding element of an audit.  Ofsted had not deemed any cases to be critically inadequate as nor had the Peer Review; most the cases were deemed requiring improvement which was a better position than that originally.  Over the next couple of months “Signs of Safety” would be implemented and a dramatic improvement expected; now that there were the numbers of staff to have the time to do the quality of work desired they now needed the tools to do the work. 

-          The persistent absence percentage was high and the percentage of children attending school was low.  What work was being done – The Government had changed the persistent absence threshold and a student only had to have a few absences for it to be classed as persistent absenteeism; this may account for some of the increase.  Clearly there was link between persistent absence and levels of attendance and the Education Welfare Officers who worked as part of the Early Help offer were producing some additional actions.   

-          Were we looking into how individual schools were tackling persistent absenteeism/low attendance?  It relied upon the Local Authority having voluntary engagement with the schools.  Schools not maintained by the Local Authority were allowed to make their own decisions with regard to absences and the sharing of information.  The Early Help Teams were there to provide support to schools around their absence policies and procedures and clearly had to have that relationship because it was the Local Authority that had the power to take formal action around school attendance.  Each school would be expected to have an attendance strategy but that was done with Early Help support.

-          Health Assessments should be completed within 35 working days.  Was that realistic?  A family did not wait long for an assessment where it was known that there were needs that could be met.  Families needed a timely service and it would be made sure an assessment was undertaken to access those services.  The 35 days could be extended but it was questionable whether the quality of the information or assessment would be any better as opposed to the quality of the experience for the family.  There were no information or guidelines but 35 days was a good principal.

-          The Leaving Care tracker showed 10 young people were not in suitable accommodation - was there any movement on the ones that were overcrowded/bed and breakfast/sofa surfing?  These were the most vulnerable young people and were kept under review.  Their personal adviser would be working with them.  

-          Early Help was doing well and Ofsted were impressed.  Looking at Early Help as a form of mitigation from families, children being stepped up.  Are we seeing that coming through in the figures or something expected to see in the future? The Children in Need figures over the last couple of months had seen a decrease of approximately 200-300 children being supported by Social Care.  It was known that children would not live their life at one point of a threshold and it was important that they received a seamless service whatever their needs.  It was expected that when some of the evidence based models e.g. Signs of Safety were implemented that coming out of the Social Care system should be quicker for children. There should be fewer children in care and more supported at home with their parents. 

-          In January 2017 there were twelve children that ceased to be LAC.  Had they reached an age where they ceased to be LAC or twelve families that work had taken place with and managed to return them home?  It could be one of three routes.  It may be that they had found alternative permanency through adoption or Special Guardianship Orders where they stayed with their family, those that turned 18 years of age so became care leavers and those that had returned home. 

-          Could a breakdown be provided of the percentage of LAC who had had three or more placements?  It was more likely that it was those children who came late into the care system and therefore subject to more placement disruption.  It was known that a child was unlikely to disrupt a placement if they came into the system at an early age; if they came in at the age of 14 it could sometimes take longer to find an appropriate family.  Some of the disrupted placements were due to planned moves but there was no doubt that there were too many children whose placement was disrupted because their carers could not meet their needs.  A strengths and difficulties questionnaire had been undertaken with the results analysed to give an assessment of a child’s emotional wellbeing.  A score of 18 indicated that they were more likely to have placement disruption; 30 children had been identified through the process and extra resources to be provided to give support prior to disruption.  A scheme, “Mocking Bird”, was to be introduced where foster carers provided support to other foster carers.

-          In January, 2017 50% of the Health Assessments of LAC carried out.  The 50% was two children of which only one had a Health Assessment.

A Health Summit with the CQC had been held looking at a range of issues of which Health Assessments was one of them and a range of actions were in place.  The CQC had been asked to conduct a review as the Authority felt its issues had been resolved.  The issues that remained were within the Health part of the system and were working very hard to manage them – having sufficient clinic time and the paediatricians submitting their report within 20 days.  There was an action plan which was monitored every week. 

-          Was there any data on how many children had stopped going into care because their families were looking after them through Section 20 etc.?  Was there support for families?  If Social Care had not been involved the child could live with a relation under a private fostering arrangement.  Where Social Care was involved, there was an obligation to support whoever cared for the child.  If it was a Special Guardianship Order the Authority would pay an allowance and make a contribution to the child’s upkeep as well as providing a range of different support dependent upon the level of need.  They would be considered as a Child in Need.  There were also children at home on a Supervision Order and a Child Arrangement Order where the Authority provided help and support. Those arrangements were reviewed to ensure they were fully working.

-          Voice of the Child – for audit purposes how well were the decisions documented not to instigate a Section 4.7 investigation?  They were documented under the management decision on every child’s case and there would be a rationale as to why that decision was made.  In January there been 19 cases where it had been found that the concerns had not been substantiated and in those instances an audit had been requested to check that the decision was right and the rationale was clear. 

-          What was being done to make ensure that a CPP was not being closed down too soon? It was felt that Signs of Safety would help in ensuring better analysis and only closing cases where they could be when it was seen that the change in a child’s circumstances was being sustained.  Most of the cases were those on a CPP because of emotional abuse and neglect so it was more difficult to know when and if a family was able to sustain an improvement.  The Authority was applying for funding to pilot under the National Innovation Programme, NST for Neglect, as there was work to be done around how families were helped where it was believed neglect was having an impact on the children. 

-          What other reasons were there for the decline in performance other than high turnover of staff across the LAC Service? – The number of children placed in an out of area placement was an issue.  Rotherham’s caseloads were low in comparison with other authorities but Social Workers had distances to travel and was why attempts were being made to bring children back to Rotherham to Rotherham families.  The target for the number of foster families had been achieved (15) and had been increased to 25. 

-          Were there applicants from all across the community and society?  There was insufficient diversity in the system.  Specialist recruitment work in some communities would not be unhelpful.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be noted.

(2)  That the next Children and Young People’s performance report include SEND Service performance data.

(3)  That the Select Commission consider as part of the 2017/18 work place exclusions and persistent absence.