Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families and the Service Manager – Family Front Door and Partnerships had been invited to the meeting to provide an update on the outcome of Ofsted’s seventh monitoring visit of the Council’s children’s safeguarding services.

The Chairman noted that the visit had taken place in January 2019 and the next visit from Ofsted would be a full inspection in the spring.  The exact date of the inspection had not yet been confirmed.

In the discussion that followed, the following main points were raised:

·       In response to a question about the percentage of temporary and permanent team leader posts, it was confirmed that there was currently only one vacancy with two posts having recently been filled.  Although these staff were new to the Authority they were very experienced and would be expected to operate as Managers from day one.  Recruitment for other social care staff was ongoing and with regard to the workforce, the Authority was currently in the strongest position for the last two years.

·       It was confirmed that this monitoring visit had focussed specifically on children at risk of CSE (child sexual exploitation) and going missing.  In relation to county lines, multi-agency partnership work was ongoing as part of the ‘Get Safe’ agenda.

·       Members were reminded that the Authority employed three permanent Missing Return Officers who carried out welfare return interviews with missing children.  They also spoke to parents and carers to evaluate what would be the best response to each incident.  Intelligence was used to identify patterns and trends to inform the ‘Get Safe’ agenda.

·       A Member questioned Ofsted’s comment that good practice was not sufficiently embedded and reflected in case recording when seeking children’s views.  The Panel was advised that although views were sought they were not always recorded which was important in order to provide clear evidence for decisions taken.

·       Concern was expressed that some CSE risk alerts were not on children’s files.  Members were informed that this was not the situation across all cases and work was ongoing to reinforce practice standards.  Permanency in the workforce would help with consistency of practice.

·       Concern was expressed about delays in holding multi-agency child exploitation (MACE) meetings.  Members were reminded that the police also had a lead role in this.  A new DCI (Detective Chief Inspector) had recently been appointed as Chairman of the ‘Get Safe’ Board and officers were hopeful that this new relationship would further improve the situation.

·       Although other agencies were involved in this work, Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures were clear that the police and local authority social care were the two lead agencies.

·       It was pointed out that the Ofsted letter referred to partnership working between the police and social workers as ‘increasingly well developed’.  This partnership working was not new, and the police were trusted partners.  Members were reminded that information was shared at a triage session which took place every Monday to discuss children vulnerable to going missing and CSE.  Officers were now looking to develop this in the wider context of county lines.  Different agencies were currently identifying children in different ways and there was a need to embed greater consistency.

·       Members were informed that previous practice had been for children aged 16+ to have a care plan as well as a pathway plan, but the two plans did not consistently align.  There had been a shift in practice which meant that they now only needed a pathway plan.  Good practice was for the plan to be written in language a young person would understand and to avoid social work jargon.  Good examples would be used to spread good practice.

·       It was confirmed that the reference to care and pathway plans not reflecting young people’s current living arrangements was an isolated incident.

·       Concern was expressed about the number of NEETs (not in education, employment or training) and ineffective partnership working between schools and social care.  It was confirmed that there was a direct correlation between those children being criminally exploited and those who were out of education.  Children who were caught carrying weapons by schools would be excluded and this would increase their vulnerability.  These issues were being discussed with the Safeguarding Advisor – Education and the Virtual Headteacher.

·       Concern was expressed that Babcock Prime had disbanded its Post-16 Engagement Team. 

·       It was suggested that some of the most vulnerable children were those who had been withdrawn for home education.  It was confirmed that following the recent admissions round for secondary schools, a data exercise would be carried out to track those who were in the education system.

·       ‘Missing Monday’ multi-agency meetings focussed on children who were known not to be in education.  Discussions would cover approximately 11 children per meeting and generally these were male and in Year 11.  The meetings would also look at the cases of all those permanently excluded, including 8 children who had been permanently excluded from primary school.  The Authority’s ambition was to eliminate primary permanent exclusions as it was recognised that this was very detrimental to a child’s life chances.

·       With reference to county lines, the majority of children involved were male and had been the subject of fixed term or permanent exclusions.  Work was ongoing to track exclusions across all schools and identify patterns of behaviour.

·       Members were informed that a full Ofsted Inspection of further education and skills provision had recently taken place.  As part of this, Ofsted had concluded that the County did not have a problem with ‘off-rolling’.  Putting a child on a part-time timetable should be a rare occurrence and should always be time-limited.

·       It was confirmed that work to eliminate primary school exclusions included working with a small group of headteachers to develop a strategy on exclusion.  Officers were also looking at individual children and had identified that many also had social care intervention.  The Authority had also commissioned services from Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) to work with schools to avoid exclusion.

·       A question was asked about whether primary PRUs in the County were full.  In response, it was suggested that it was more the case that mainstream schools were not inclusive enough and needed support to re-integrate children into their schools.  There was a danger that a ‘shadow system’ of alternative provision was being created.  A change of mindset was needed to ensure there were no permanent exclusions from primary schools.

·       A Member suggested that it was clear that there was a great deal of excellent work going on.  She suggested that exploiters would target children who were not at school and went on to express particular concern about part-time timetables.  Those looking to exploit children were aware that if children did not go to school they would bring themselves to the attention of the Authorities.  However, children on a part-time timetable could attend school but still have time to be exploited.

·       The Service Manager for FFD & Partnerships informed Members that to date most children involved in county lines activity were already known to the authorities. However, more recently referrals were being seen of children who had not previously been on the radar, as gangs tried to exploit those who were not known to the authorities.  She pointed out that this could be anyone’s child.

·       With reference to foster carers’ skills and resilience, the Panel had heard at a previous meeting that training had been arranged.  However, the Ofsted letter suggested that a problem remained.  It was confirmed that Ofsted had expressed concern about how well-equipped foster carers were to prevent placement breakdown.  Work was at an early stage and progress was being made but this was not evident in the cases that Ofsted had looked at. Training had been provided on children missing from home and care, but it was acknowledged that there was further work to do to support foster carers in dealing with challenging situations.  Robust plans needed to be in place to ensure that foster carers were not isolated.  It was confirmed that the training was not mandatory but had been well attended.  It was agreed that levels of attendance would be confirmed after the meeting.

·       The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families reminded Members that the report was positive in that it was clear that plans and resources were in place.  From a negative point of view, children’s social care was not yet good in every aspect and that was a challenge.

·       He also pointed out that the terminology around children’s social care was complex.  For example, a child ‘missing’ could mean different things in different contexts.

·       The Cabinet Member was reassured that a great deal of strategic partnership work was being done to identify young people at risk of being exploited (including gangs, county lines and CSE) but this was not yet fully developed.  He went on to suggest that this could be the subject of further work by this Panel and by the Corporate Parenting Board.

·       The Ofsted letter referred to the caseloads of ‘most’ social workers being manageable.  Members were informed that Ofsted had generalised from conversations with a small number of social workers, one of which had temporarily taken on additional duties.  Social work caseloads had been reduced but this would fluctuate from time to time depending on staffing levels.

·       It was confirmed that the lack of management challenge to poor social work practice did not specifically refer to agency staff.  Members were reminded that cases were fluid and, as things changed, a change of action should be evidenced in the notes.  Managers needed to ensure that they recorded why they made decisions including any ad hoc conversations.

·       Members were reminded that Ofsted had noted that no child was at risk and social workers knew children well and understood the risks.  Recording and tracking of decisions needed to be improved.