Minutes:
1. Mr Gilroy and Mr Thomason summarised the content and findings of the earlier two phases of the review and tabled documents, which included letters between Mr Gilroy and Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. They explained that the final report of the review – titled ‘Safeguarding Children in Kent: Defending and Developing the Service’ - would be reported to the full County Council at its meeting on 1 April 2010.
2. Mr Gilroy set out some of the key findings and areas of recommendation which would appear in the final report, as follows:-
a) Kent has the lowest child homicide rate in the UK, and the UK as a whole is a safe place in terms of child safeguarding, compared with many other European countries. The serious case review data prepared by Loughborough University, which will be included in the report, generally shows Kent in a good light;
b) in terms of staffing and training, Kent has a good record of innovation, continuity and low turnover, and gives good quality supervision;
c) the Integrated Children’s System (ICS) is not fit for purpose, as 80% of practitioners’ time is tied up in bureaucracy and administration. Given the increase in the number of referrals in the past year (previously reported as 46%, but now 22%, as the way in which they are recorded has changed), and the likelihood that this increase will continue, this is unsustainable. This view is supported by the Local Government Association and researchers at Loughborough University;
d) Recommendation 19 of Lord Laming’s report, that every referral should have a full assessment, is not sustainable or affordable, and money made available to fund these assessments will not directly benefit Kent’s children. The level of support for Recommendation 19 among bodies dealing with Children’s Social Work has not been clear;
e) a few Children’s Social Work (CSW) teams in Kent have a vacancy rate of 40%,and the recent and ongoing programme of international recruitment will not address this. The report will recommend that Kent rethink its position regarding university trainees. When such trainees have been recruited in the past, they have stayed in the job and been successful;
f) the report will recommend multi-disciplinary training in Kent, delivered by the Universities in partnership with the Police, Children’s Social Services and Health Visitors. Training could be delivered by actors in realistic home settings, and could be used to deliver Child Protection training to a range of final year students, including trainee teachers, GPs, Social Workers, nurses, etc;
g) physical and sexual abuse is and always has been very difficult to deal with, and shared training will increase practitioners’ confidence in dealing with it;
h) thresholds should be clearly understood by all partners. Although only the Police, Social Services and the NSPCC have the statutory power to investigate Child Protection incidents, other organisations also have a responsibility, but it is difficult to agree among partners where thresholds are;
i) the report will suggest collective responsibility for verification supervision, where CSW teams are particularly short-staffed; and
j) the report will recommend a consultant post reporting directly to the Head of Paid Service and the Director of CFE. This post would have a strategic role and give an overview across the whole KCC, allowing an objective check.
3. Mr Gilroy concluded by saying that the future challenges that KCC will face in Child Protection work are unprecedented, but that Kent would approach these from a strong position with a background of good practice.
4. In discussion, and in response to questions, the following points were highlighted:-
a) issues cited by Social Workers leaving the job were too much bureaucracy and admin work as well as the weight of the workload. Kent at best had had a 4 – 8% vacancy rate, but was now using agency staff to cover, which was not a desirable situation;
b) Mr Gilroy said he would have reinstated the USA exchange programme, but had not included this as one of his recommendations;
c) Ms Davies pointed out that, although 10 teams had been identified as having a 40% vacancy rate, the average vacancy rate across CSW teams was 29%, and had reduced since to 26%. Mr Gilroy agreed that the general picture in Kent was good, but that an interim arrangement was needed when the rate was particularly high;
d) Kent could try other models for its CSW teams, such as the model trialled by Hackney Council. KCC Members and the Director of Specialist Children’s Services were to visit Hackney shortly to see if Kent could learn from their experiences;
e) all the high profile Child Protection cases which Kent had seen had involved families which were already known to Social Services, and the issues involved in these cases were familiar. New Social Workers needed to be familiar with and proficient in the ‘sharp end of the job’ as well as the preventative agenda; and
g) Mr Worlock asked that the Kent Safeguarding Children Board (KSCB) receive a copy of Mr Gilroy’s final report when it went to the County Council. He added that the KSCB had a very strong quality assurance mechanism in place and would further strengthen this in the next year.
5. RESOLVED that:-
a) Mr Gilroy and his team be thanked for their work on the review and the preparation of the final report; and
b) the Children’s Champions Board recommends that the final report of the review be considered by the Cabinet on 29 March and the Vulnerable Children and Partnerships CFEPOSC on 31 March, before going to full County Council at its meeting on 1 April.