Agenda item

This report sets out performance data and trends for an agreed set of measures relating to: contacts, referrals and assessments , child protection, children looked after, prevention and early intervention - including special educational needs, in year fair access, young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs),youth offending and service effectiveness.

Before considering the Performance report, Committee Members raised concerns about the findings of the recent Serious Case Review Overview Report on Child T published by the LSCB (Local Safeguarding Children’s Board) and sought assurance that lessons were being learnt by the Children’s services from this, and previous Serious Case Reviews. The Chair asked Members to note that the Serious Case Review Overview report on Child T related to the period between mid 2010 and early 2011 and there have been major changes in the way in which Children services have been configured both locally and nationally.

Committee Members further expressed disquiet at the lack of information provided to them about the case, prior to the publication of the Serious Case Review Overview report. They were also concerned about their apparent separation from the LSCB process, as elected Members, because this affected the level of knowledge they had about issues in the Children’s service. Members were advised, by the Chair, that the LSCB have criteria for taking forward a Serious Case Review, which is governed by separate legal rules, and provide the reasons for completing the SCR  and publication .The Chair shared the Committee’s frustration about the apparent isolation of elected Members from the LSCB process and explained that the LSCB is a statutory partnership body, required by law, separate to the council and not part of the council’s decision making structure.   The Membership of the board is made up partner agencies and only includes senior officer representatives from agencies working with children. Serious Case Reviews can only be completed by the LSCB and are studies into partner failings and the lessons that have to be learned.

Committee Members felt the Serious Case Review overview report provides a salient reminder that there is always a need, as Members, to  continually question and evaluate whether the Children’s services is adhering to core safeguarding responsibilities. In response, it was noted that the service was focused on learning the lessons from this period and regular performance reports provided to both Cabinet Advisory   Committees provided councillors with a continual daily insight of how the service worked and if they were meeting the needs for safeguarding children and acting as good corporate parents for looked after children.  These were the reports to rely on, in relation to how the service worked.

The Chair explained that  the Serious Case Review overview report had not been put forward to the joint meeting as it did not meet the  purpose of these meetings  which is  to look at polices and work areas relating to both safeguarding and looked after children. The Children’s and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel was due to raise issues concerning the SCR overview report at their meeting next week. However, it was accepted that the SCR overview report raised issues pertaining to the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee’s remit and the joint Committee agreed there should also be consideration of the Serious Case Review overview report by this Committee.

The Chair of the Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee concurred that the Serious Case Review overview report should come forward to the meeting in January, or sooner if a special meeting could be arranged. However, he was also concerned about recent press reports that a further separate serious case review had been commissioned by the LSCB. He felt there should have been more communication with the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee about the Serious Case Review overview report on Child T and that notification should be given of future Serious Case Review overview reported. The Chair of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee also asked if there was a role for the Committee in the compilation of future SCR’s? It was explained that the management information used to compile a Serious Case Review was highly confidential as it involves information relating to individuals and the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee did not have responsibility, in their terms of reference, for involvement in the compilation of SCR’s. There were specific legal guidelines related to the SCR process to ensure that agencies with responsibility for children, which the council is one, are independently scrutinised.

The Interim Director of Children’s services suggested meeting with the Chair of the LSCB to enable Members to ask him any questions about the SCR process and the role of the LSCB. The Chair and Interim Director agreed to also speak with the Chair of the LSCB, in person, about this.

The Chair of Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee would also speak with the Independent Member about completing an analysis of the findings of the Serious Case Review Overview Report Child T, relating to Children’s services to understand if lessons have been learned and the required improved practices are in place.

The Interim Director of Children’s services asked Members to keep in mind that there was number of agencies, as well as another borough, involved in the Care of Child T which is cited in the Serious Case Review overview report. Although it was important to have robust discussions about this with Children’s services, there was also a need to ensure that all agencies have also learned the lessons.

To provide Members with more confidence, it was suggested providing a report to the next Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee about the quality assurance measures in place relating to safeguarding. The Interim Director also illustrated how the service was focussing on quality assurance and having monthly call over performance meetings to get a good understanding of where improvements were needed and what actions were being taken.

Performance

HY650/OP660 – Children and Families Assessments carried out within 45 working days.  This stood at 67% against a target of 80%.  There had been some challenging staffing issues during this period which had led to this performance figure. The Head of First Response was now reviewing all assessments at 5 days to ascertain if the child has been visited or is likely to be seen before the end of the 10 days.

Committee Members questioned the drop in numbers of children becoming subject to a child protection plan. This was occurring at the same time children were ceasing to come into care .Committee Members were asked to note the combination of actions and successes that were leading to both these figures reducing to where they should be, in line with statistical comparator boroughs. These actions included an increase in Adoptions, Special Guardianships, and also enabling children to go home and not be subject to care.

OP148 – Care Leavers in Education/ OP147 Care Leavers in suitable accommodation. Noted that both these performance figures were much lower than the target being worked to. The Head of Children in Care reported that they were putting in place monthly workshops on employability and these sessions will be put in place to engage as many young people as possible. There is also a determination by the service to ensure that every young person is involved in employment, training or education. Committee Members were asked to not assume that a young person has been in care from an early a young age and were provided with some different examples of how a young person leaving care or in care will become NEET. It was also important to keep in mind the positive experience of education with over 40 care leavers in University.

Social worker vacancy rates

The turnover in social workers and managers was referred to and   clarification sought on the number of permanent staff in place and if there was a core group of staff, particularly in safeguarding, that remained in place and provided stability. The Committee were assured that there was a core team of staff in place which had remained constant. It was acknowledged that the recruiting to social work positions in Haringey and in London was generally harder. There was particular media focus on this profession making it a more difficult career choice. The interim Director explained that to mitigate against the everyday difficulties faced by social workers there was a need to have in place good leadership, strong management and a supportive culture around them. The Head of Safeguarding and Support explained that the service had worked hard to achieve a stable core team of staff in safeguarding that could provide stability for social workers. Social workers in Haringey were under more pressure and there were ways of working and support to help social workers manage the everyday risks or their job. This included support to social care staff in Children’s services at every level. However, despite the pressures people did want to work for Haringey. The government had chosen Haringey to be the recipient of 8 new social workers who had recently completed the national training programme. This demonstrated the confidence in the borough and the systems in place to take on these new trainees. The Children’s service needed to make the most of this by continuing to provide the strong leadership, coaching to staff, and working closely with new social workers to provide them with the confidence to do their job.

Members accepted the principles outlined of good management but also wanted to make sure that basic activities were in place such as consistent supervision meetings and performance appraisals as these were fundamental daily priorities to get right. This was accepted by the service as a high priority and performance managed internally.

Children missing from care at any time in the month – OP419.Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee particularly noted the Cabinet Member for Children gets a weekly update in her meeting with the Directorate team on the children missing from care. This involves quite detailed feedback on the efforts being made to find them. It was pleasing to note that there were currently, as of last week, no children missing from care. The performance comments were felt to be a little misleading as they did not clarify if it was the same 15 children missing at one time or 15 occurrences of young people absconding from care? Also they did not provide an indication of how long they had been missing from care and if any were frequent absconders. Agreed that the phrasing of the comments address the above comments made. Members were further assured that once the young person is back in their placement there will be follow up interviews taken forward by an independent advocate to understand the reasons for them going missing.