Agenda item

The Head of Internal Audit, Anti-Fraud and Assurance submitted a report reminding Members that at the meeting in March 2021 it had been agreed that the Committee have a regular opportunity for  a ‘deep dive’ of some of the strategic risks with the appropriate Executive Director in attendance to update and assure the Committee on the management of their risks.

Members were further reminded that the Strategic Risk Register contained 13 risks of which 1 had been classified as high (red rating), 10 had been classified as medium (amber rating) and 2 had been classified as low (green rating).  A copy of the current Strategic Risks/Concerns as at July 2021 was appended to the report.

All strategic risks had a number of actions identified to minimise/mitigate the risks and all actions had review/completing dates, status updates, progress RAG ratings and identified Action Owners.

The risk register system particularly as it related to the two Strategic Risks of the Executive Director Children’s Services was displayed using Power BI software.  This software allowed risk holder to filter and drill down through reports and thereby track and manage risks and ensure that appropriate action was being taken.

Ms Mel Jon-Ross, Executive Director Children’s Services attended to meeting and provided the Committee with a review of two strategic risks within her Service namely:

·         Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

·         Potential Death of a Child/Safeguarding failure in Children’s Services

Ms John-Ross gave details of the background to both these risks and to why they were included within the Strategic Risk Register.  She outlined the other risk factors that had been identified that underpinned the Strategic Risks and detailed the actions taken to track and manage those risks making particular reference to the other departments and agencies involved as well as the partnership and other arrangements that were in place to support the service and manage the risks.  In managing the risks, she commented on the overriding importance of ensuring that the service met people’s individual needs.

In relation to SEND, it was noted that although a new set of controls was in place and the Oversight Board had been developed to ensure that issues identified in the Peer Review Challenge were in place, there remained a need to focus on whether the systems established would be able to support improvements at pace and to the satisfaction of Service users and reduce the need to send children out of area which was not only expensive but attracted poor satisfactions rates.  This strategic risk was classified as a low risk (green).

In relation to the second strategic risk which was classified as a medium risk (amber), there was confidence that appropriate controls were in place to minimise the potential safeguarding failures, however, there was a need to continually appraise these and to be able to identify any changes which may weaken current levels of assurance.  Factors included:

·         The impact of Covd 10 on families and workforce capacity which could increase workload pressures

·         Increasing incidence of poverty which could impact on demands for services and lead to increases in caseloads

·         Future financial settlements that could impact on service provision

·         An awareness of pressures in the system such as increasing workload which could lead to a decrease in staff attendance at meetings

·         The potential for huge reputational damage in the event of a failure of the system/arrangements

In relation to both strategic risks Ms John-Ross gave a detailed explanation of

·         All the risks identified together with their classification/rating and the reasons for that

·         How each risk was risk managed and by whom

·         Examples of recent risk activity and risk mitigations included

Arising out of the ensuing discussion particular reference was then made to the following:

·         The benefits that the new approach to risk management and the use of Power Bi brought, particularly in terms of check and challenge.  The ability to review progress and identify future actions, was noted

·         Particular reference was made to the work with client groups, partner organisation and other agencies and also to the way in which consultation was undertaken to assist in the development of strategies, policies and approaches to work. 

·         Reference was also made to the importance of ensuring that clients did not have to ‘tell their story’ multiple times and to the initiatives that had been introduced to enable this to be avoided

·         Congratulations were extended at the success of the service being nominated for a Local Government Chronicle Award for a partnership approach involving the Early Start and Family Services and Barnsley Hospital

·         There was a discussion of the monitoring of staff workloads in order to ensure consistency and adherence to good practice.  Arising out of this, reference was also made to:

o   The increasing awareness of safeguarding needs and to the additional investment in the service which had allowed additional social workers to be appointed on a temporary basis rather than using agency staff

o   The ways in which long term demand could be reduced by investment in early help initiatives

o   The impact of changes in working arrangements and workloads due to Covid 19.  It was noted that continuity of service had been maintained throughout the pandemic and reference was made to ways in which workload pressures were monitored both by the SMT but by the Safeguarding Board and the Trust.  There was also a discussion of the increase of home-schooling throughout the pandemic, to the difficulties this brought both in terms of social and welfare needs but also to educational requirements.  The ways in which this risk was managed was outlined

·         Information was provided about the governance of the multi-agency arrangements and to the work of the Safeguarding Partnership in this respect

RESOLVED:

(i)            That the Risk Register and Strategic Concerns update be noted; and

(ii)          That Mel John-Ross, Executive Director Children’s Services, be thanked for attending the meeting and for answering Members questions.