Agenda item

To inform the Committee of the work undertaken by Children’s Services on a day to day basis and to update on the progress and implementation of developments within the areas.

Ms Kate Aldridge, Head of Delivery and Performance presented the work undertaken to date regarding the ‘Journey of the Child’. She advised that all systems and processes within Children’s Services had been reviewed from the front door to the permanence teams. The terminology ‘Journey of the Child’ was being used to symbolise change across the service, which would ensure the experiences of the children and young people supported was positive and outcome focussed.

In order to determine what outcomes should be, children and young people had been involved and had given clear direction on the vision, highlighting good outcomes as being safe, happy, healthy, to do well in school, to get a good job and to have a voice and have it listened to.

Ms Aldridge reported that a large amount of change had already occurred, citing a new approach to Protecting Vulnerable People, audit work feeding learning and development and the implementation of a risk sensible model. Real progress had already been made through the changes implemented and four key projects had been identified. The key project areas were ‘the front door’, children with additional needs and special educational needs, preventing exploitation and the relationship between Families in Need and Children in Need.

Members noted that there had previously been concerns raised regarding the number of referrals made to the front door by the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and how appropriate the referrals were.  It was queried if the Journey of the Child work had had an impact on MASH referrals. In response, Ms Aldridge advised that a significant change had been made, with MASH colleagues using the risk sensible approach to referrals resulting in a reduction in demand generated and a more appropriate level of referral. She added that partners were engaged in the process and that further improvements could be made.

Members also queried the level of school involvement in the work and Mrs Diane Booth, Director of Children’s Services advised that time had been spent improving relationships with schools. As a result, schools were more involved, collaborative, engaged and supportive of work taking place. In response to further questions, Mrs Booth advised that a large amount of work was ongoing relating to school improvement and schools were supporting each other in order to improve the quality of teaching and education in Blackpool.

It was noted that not all children were academic and that an aspiration could be that ‘every child reached their own full potential’, thereby recognising that every child was an individual.

The Committee discussed the potential for social workers to be clustered around communities and schools. Mrs Booth advised that such an ambition was being worked towards, however, it was not a quick process as social workers supporting children should not be changed unless it was necessary. She added that the process had been started to allocate new cases in certain schools to certain social workers. In addition, teams of care would be created in communities.

In response to questioning, Mrs Booth advised that in her tenure at Blackpool a child in care had never been placed in a caravan park. She noted that the case referred to in the local press was not a Blackpool child.

It was reported that the recruitment and retention of quality teachers was a national concern and Members queried the work ongoing locally to address the concern. Mrs Booth advised that funding provided by Opportunity Areas and the strategic school improvement fund was being used to support teachers, develop career paths and ensure that the right leadership was available in schools. She added that although she did not have a full set of information owing to the academy system, the turnover of teachers appeared to be slowing down.

It was reported that Children in Need were children that did not meet thresholds for Child Protection Plans or to be taken into care but required support to be put in place to ensure there was no escalation. Following a discussion by the Committee, Mrs Booth advised that interventions could not take place if children did not meet the thresholds for risk. It was noted that prevention was important, but that children and young people must be communicated with rather than assumptions being made. She added that place based delivery through a hub had been trialled in Talbot and Brunswick wards with some success. It was hoped that a similar provision could be rolled out across Blackpool in time.

Members raised concerns that Head Start had not met targets in place and that outcomes had not been reported on. Mrs Booth reported that she shared the Committee’s concerns and was expecting to receive the outcomes framework in due course. She added that Head Start was a research project and that an evaluation was being supported by Brighton University.

The Committee discussed the number of children in care and noted that there had been a large increase in March 2018. Mrs Booth advised that the Council would not stop taking children into care who required care. She reported that the work to discharge children who no longer required care had not been as quick as predicted, however, the discharge process must be undertaken safely. It was also important to ensure social workers felt safe in their decision making. Rather than focussing on the total number of children in care, it was important to focus on ensuring the right children were in care and processes were safe. Members acknowledged the importance of ensuring all children were safe, but raised further concerns relating to the budget and the extent to which the Council could cope financially with the number of children in care.

Mrs Booth reported that the Sufficiency Strategy was in development and would look at the costs of care, the provision of services internally and the sourcing and commissioning of external placements. She added that a balance between internal and external places was needed and commissioning processes would be fully reviewed to ensure value for money. Members requested that a breakdown of the reasons why children were placed out of town be provided to the next meeting and it was agreed that the information could be provided as part of a wider look at care options.

Members discussed care leavers in detail and noted that there were four legal categories of care leaver. The category a young person was given indicated the level of support provided. A number of concerns were raised relating to the care leavers living in unsuitable accommodation and the number of care leavers in custody. It was queried whether more support could have been provided to the care leavers to ensure they were more prepared to transition out of care. In response, Mrs Booth advised that once a young person had left care they could make the choice to not engage with services and the Council had no legal ability to interfere in their lives. She acknowledged that work was required on the care leaver offer and advised that the Corporate Parent Panel was undertaking an exercise to make improvements. She added that improvements to the whole care system would result in young people being more ready to leave care, citing stability in placements as key in teaching independence.

The Committee agreed to receive a report to the next meeting of the Committee looking at the results from the review of foster carers, the reasons why children were placed out of borough and the options for residential care.