Agenda item

To consider performance against the Council Plan 2015/2020 for the period 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016.

Mrs Ruth Henshaw, Corporate Development Officer presented the performance against the Council Plan 2015/2020 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and highlighted the key exceptions.

Members raised a number of questions regarding the performance indicator relating to the death to service time for cremation. In response, Councillor Graham Cain, Cabinet Secretary for Resilient Communities advised that the crematorium did have sufficient capacity and availability for cremations to occur within the target time, however, service users had a choice regarding when to hold the cremation. He added that the number of times on offer during the day had been increased and services were also being offered on Saturdays. However, delays would still occur if friends and families were very specific regarding the time and day of the service. In response to further questioning, Councillor Cain reported that there was a choice of service length of 30 or 45 minutes and that both service lengths were available at the same cost.

The Committee noted that in relation to the death to service time for cremations there were three clear factors contributing to delays, the third of which was highlighted as the length of time the West Lancashire Coroner took to process paperwork if the death occurred outside of Blackpool and Members queried why that was the case. It was agreed that a full written response would be sought following the meeting.

Assurance was sought by the Committee that Adult Social Care service users who had not received a completed review were safe. Ms Karen Smith, Deputy Director of People (Adult Services) advised that reviews were completed in priority order due to the difficulties in undertaking annual reviews caused by the significant increase in volume. She added that priority was given to new service users and those with variable conditions, with lower priority given to stable service users identified as a lower risk. In response to further questions, Ms Smith advised that further investment would be made to appoint new social workers based on the evidence of increased volume and some elements of the system had been streamlined.

Members discussed the indicator relating to the number of permanent admissions to residential care per 100,000 of population and noted that numbers in Blackpool were significantly higher than the national average. Councillor Cain reported that Blackpool had been an outlier for the indicator for 15 years. He added that a robust system was in place to ensure that permanent admissions to care were only made when necessary and that Blackpool had a greater supply of residential care allowing the decision to be taken when required.

The Committee queried whether the introduction of the NHS’s Vanguard New Models of Care approach would have an impact on the number of permanent admissions to residential care. In response, Ms Smith advised that in her opinion, it was unlikely to have any immediate impact.

Following a discussion regarding the increasing number of Looked After Children, Members queried progress made in developing an in house therapeutic unit. Councillor Cain advised that investigations were ongoing into the best way in which to offer therapeutic services. Responding to further questions, Ms Amanda Hatton, Deputy Director of People (Early Help and Social Care) reported that an audit was currently being undertaken on the 49 children taken into care between 1 April 2016 and 15 June 2016 in order to ascertain key data including where the children were from, the school attended, age and previous contact with social services. The Committee requested that a future thematic discussion be held regarding the increasing number of looked after children and the response to the increase.

It was noted that the target had not been met for the percentage of children subject to a child protection plan for a second time and Members questioned why the target had not been met. Ms Hatton advised that a child becoming subject to a plan for a second time was not always poor performance, however, if the child had been subject to a plan within the previous two years for similar issues that suggested that the issues had not been resolved before the child had been removed from a plan the first time. She added that an audit had been undertaken and had demonstrated that children had been removed from a plan too early on three occasions.

The Committee agreed:

1.             To receive a written response following the meeting regarding the length of time the West Lancashire Coroner took to process paperwork if the death occurred outside of Blackpool and the impact on time from death to cremation.

2.             To hold a thematic discussion on the number of looked after children and the response to the increasing number at a future meeting.