Minutes:
The following witnesses were welcomed to the meeting:-
· Mel John-Ross, Service Director Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding
· Councillor Margaret Bruff, Cabinet Spokesperson People (Safeguarding).
Mel John-Ross introduced the Children’s Social Care monthly report for March 2017, containing a summary of performance and the major performance indicators for children’s safeguarding and social care. Members were also provided with a summary report, together with supporting documentation, which outlined and explained the terminology used in the report and advised how to interpret the information given.
Members asked questions in response to the report submitted and the following matters were highlighted:-
· Work continued to address the levels of social work caseloads, although these were not as high as some statistical neighbours. Within this, it was important to recognise that there were a range of other issues to be taken into account, such as how complex the needs were of service users, rather than simply the numbers.
· It was noted that the time taken to match children with prospective adopters was above the Government target of 120 days, but had seen a significant improvement from levels recorded in November 2015. Emphasis continued to be placed on achieving the right placement for the child in question, even if this went beyond the Government target, and the Council had a good track record in placing older children and keeping family groups together as part of this approach.
· Members noted the requirements and regulations to record looked after children as “missing”, even though it was likely that their whereabouts were known to the service. The importance of undertaking systematic reviews of every “missing” incident was noted so that appropriate action could be taken. In particular, it was known that placing children as close as possible to their local area went some way to reducing the number of “missing” incidents. The Corporate Parenting Panel had requested a detailed investigation into this matter, which would be shared with the meeting in due course.
· To an extent, it was unlikely that re-referrals and additional child protection plans would ever be avoided, even if this was regrettable. It was important to make efforts to deal with issues in the family home, through a child protection plan, rather than moving prematurely to care proceedings. If it came to a Court hearing, the evidence trail of any child protection plan arrangements would be critical to the case.
· The position on dental checks for looked after children was noted, with the record in respect of younger children welcomed. The meeting noted the challenge in achieving compliance with dental check requests for older children.
RESOLVED:-
(i) that the witnesses were thanked for their attendance and contribution;
(ii) that the report on “missing” incidents commissioned by the Corporate Parenting Panel be shared with the committee in due course; and
(iii) that a report giving further information on dental checks for looked after children be requested.