Agenda item

Members wondered whether there was any cause for concern regarding the budget efficiency saving target and whether there were any plans to mitigate those concerns in the short term. Officers advised that there was always concern because some factors were out of the Council’s control. A portion of the uplift has been earmarked for building capacity within contract monitoring and quality assurance systems. An OM has been identified who will oversee contract monitoring and progression planning for children in regulated placements.

Members wished to know whether capacity pressures were easing. Officers advised that the pressure was still intense. A system review has been commissioned to investigate ways to increase efficiency. The additional capacity will improve planning and oversight. Officers expressed confidence that pressures will ease.

Members were concerned that the return to face-to-face working might lead to the loss of staff and of some of the efficiencies from remote working. Officers advised that it was important to retain efficiencies from reductions in time spent travelling to face-to-face meetings. Equally it is important for newly qualified social workers to have face-to-face meetings with families and teams for the sake of learning. A balance needs to be struck with blended working. Remote reviewing has been carried out by staff living in London or the north of England. Some agency staff have been unwilling to conduct face-to-face meetings and have been let go. Flexible working is offered but it is not possible for social workers to always work remotely.

Members discussed the correlation of vacancies with retention rates. Officers referred to a graph on page 51 of the agenda pack which indicated the net result of social workers starting and leaving the service. Workforce data indicating how long social workers have been with the service will be presented at the forthcoming meeting of the Committee.

Members referred to the data presented on page 39 of the agenda pack indicating the percentage of children reoffending within 6 months of their previous offence, and expressed a desire to see similar data for 12 month and 24 month intervals.

Members expressed a view that the KPIs in the report did not demonstrate how children are benefiting from decisions being taken. Officers recognised the importance of measuring the differences made to children and families but advised that they are hard to report on as they are qualitative. Officers will investigate whether there are ways to do it but they would not be KPIs and would not be reported nationally.

Members questioned why the SW vacancies target was set at 24% and not zero. Members were advised that it was felt that the service was setting itself up to fail by setting the target too low and that a more realistic target was suggested. The target had at one time been 33% and while it was right to set a challenge it had to be realistic. The situation is volatile and zero would be unrealistic. There would always be a need for agency staff. Feedback from staff indicated an improvement in morale which was a credit to the changed culture created by officers. The vacancy target for next year has been reduced but it is important targets are realistic for budget setting purposes. Agency staff are required for their resilience and experience. Some agency staff have been with the service for a long time.

Members sought information on why sickness absence was increasing. Officers expressed satisfaction that the service was within target. There has been a slight increase due to taking back direct service provision. Staff cannot come into work if they are unwell, and there has been a difference due to Covid. Sickness is closely monitored.

Members sought clarification on the time frame within which assessments should be done and questioned why the target was not 100% instead of 75%. Officers advised that the time frame was 42 days. The target was a realistic one but was being achieved. Officers are considering transferring the responsibility for assessments to localities.

Members sought an explanation of the figures for children being registered and deregistered and wished to know what the impact on the children was.  Officers advised that during Covid children could not be visited and were not attending school or being seen by health visitors. Consequently there had been an increase in the number being registered due to concerns over their safety. There had then been a review which enabled many to be stepped down. Officers expressed the hope that being registered had had a positive impact on the children.

Members sought clarification of the figure of 41% of children being registered for emotional abuse and wished to know how the decision for registration was made. Officers advised that there had been a change in emphasis with a concentration on the impact on children of domestic abuse without physical injury. Work has been and is being done on being trauma informed and the harm that ongoing trauma through for example emotional neglect does to children. Behaviours that indicate emotional harm would be picked up in early referrals and assessments, through schools and health visitors, and then investigated by SWs. The decision to register or not is made at Child Protection Conference.

Members noted that external placements were decreasing while remaining with kinship was increasing. Officers advised that there has been ongoing work in regard to the decrease in regulated placements compared to children staying with family members. There was a very large rise in kinship care in recent years. Significant change is required across the board.

Members wished to know whether more could be done before registering children for emotional abuse. Officers advised that Children’s Services cannot prevent emotional abuse. However, work can be done around the whole school approach, early intervention and children and infants’ mental health. There are initiatives around parenting that will have a major impact on children’s emotional wellbeing.