Minutes:
(1) Mrs Weiss explained it had not been possible to supply the planned Kent Safeguarding Children Board (KSCB) Annual Report. The paper will not be signed off by the KSCB until the next meeting. Mrs Weiss gave an oral update on Safeguarding within the Children, Families and Education (CFE) Directorate and responded to questions and comments from Members. She said that that the Cabinet Member, Leyland Ridings, took an active role in safeguarding issues, having regular monthly briefings with Bill Anderson and Mrs Weiss, in which he asked searching questions.
(2) Members commented that the relationship between Paul Brightwell and the IRO service was good, but the external perception of this would be that the services, being in-house, were not sufficiently independent. The County Council should be aware of this perception and how the services would appear to the public.
(3) A Member stated that the County Council should ensure that channels of communication were as open as possible, from the bottom up. A case was cited of a non-Kent child in another authority, whom the Head Teacher had noticed was behaving in a disturbed fashion. Referrals to the local safeguarding service had been unsuccessful. It later transpired that the child’s father had killed the child’s mother. The Member asked what help a Head Teacher would receive in Kent. Mrs Weiss explained that, in Kent, the Head Teacher could have contacted the Education Safeguards Service run by Kel Arthur, Policy and Standards Manager, Education Safeguards, and they would have a supported discussion with Children’s Social Services. Head Teachers are aware of Kel Arthur’s Team, which has a good working relationship with them, with Kel’s team being well thought of. Some Local Authorities do not have this sort of team or service.
(4) Mrs Weiss explained that there had been an increase in the number of children who are subject to Child Protection plans (previously those on the ‘At Risk’ Register) in the last 3 years. This correlates with the reduction in the number of Looked After Children.
(5) The largest number of cases are due to neglect and emotional abuse. All children who have a Child Protection plan have an allocated social worker, and all social workers have regular supervision. Performance in respect of the Performance Assessment Framework indicators is mostly very good. 99.8% of case conferences are held on time. Kent performs well compared to its statistical neighbours.
(6) Members asked if Kent could be sure that ALL its children were safeguarded, to which Mrs Weiss replied that it was not possible to give a 100% guarantee that there would never be a Child Protection incident. Some families may not be involved with social services. When families are known, social workers and managers work to manage risk as safely as possible and in the best interests of the child. When there is an incident, the KSCB will hold a Serious Case Review. The KSCB was previously chaired by the Managing Director of CFE, and recommendations for improvements are monitored.
(7) In response to a question about risk, Mrs Weiss replied that risk is managed in part by having competent staff. Children’s Social Services have a recruitment and retention strategy in place, together with a programme of continuous professional development. Turnover and vacancy levels are lower in Kent than in many other local authorities, but it is necessary to take continual action to maintain staffing levels and Children’s Social Care has vacancies it would like to fill. Kent uses mostly the County Council’s own social workers and uses agency staff as little as possible. Members commented that cuts, when they are made, tend to remove back office staff, with the result that social workers have to do their own paperwork and case recording. This takes time away from their contact time with families.
(8) In response to a question from Members, Mrs Weiss explained that the Department for Children, Schools and Families had introduced the Integrated Children’s Service (ICS), use of which is mandatory. This requires social workers to input information and case notes directly to the ICS system, which is very time consuming and impacts on direct work with children and families.
(9) In response to a question about the number of court proceedings, Mrs Weiss explained that the Public Law Outline (PLO) had been introduced in April 2008. This requires various assessments and services to be completed before care proceedings are instigated, except in emergencies. There has been a reduction in the number of applications for care proceedings nationally. However, a reaction to the case of Baby P is that this pattern has now being reversed, at least in the short term. Children’s Social Services is monitoring its court proceedings, however it is too early to comment on the impact of the PLO. Members commented that the County Council spends £2.7m per annum on case preparation, using external solicitors, and questioned if it would be cheaper to use the County Council’s in-house solicitors.
(10) Regarding a question about the availability of placements to accommodate a child when they go into care, Mrs Weiss said that she was not aware of any case where a child needing to be Looked After was refused because no placement had been available. KCC would use an Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) when absolutely necessary.
(11) Members referred to the lobbying it had previously done to reduce the number of children placed in care in Kent by other local authorities. It’s good that Kent, being a very large county, had the capacity to accommodate its own requirement for child placements. Members asked if it was possible to be given some figures for the number of placements available. Mrs Weiss commented that some local authorities had not developed in-house services as they preferred to place in Kent and possibly found it less expensive. Most of Kent’s Looked After Children are fostered. Kent’s fostering service is inspected yearly and scores well.
(12) Members acknowledged that the work that social workers undertook was sometimes harrowing and difficult to cope with. Mr Brightwell added that the Head Teacher at Wilmington School (referring to a recent case) had been very complimentary about the support received from Kent Children’s Services.
(13) Responding to a question about the Educational Psychologist service and its role, Mr Heather said that the Educational Psychologist service was able to give a very rapid response to the incident at Wilmington School, and two psychologists were at the school earlier that morning. He had been able to keep up good communication links with them to monitor the situation. He explained that the educational psychologist service distinguished between “critical incidents” and “sad events”. Critical incidents occur with more frequency than people would think; recent evidence suggests that there are some 23 to 25 of these a year. One of the key issues that needs consideration by all those involved in these incidents is how to manage with accuracy and sensitivity the flow of information to the press and public. The service is concerned with supporting and helping school systems manage these types of difficult occasions. The service is also able to signpost additional involvement to support individual cases, where this is necessary, to other agencies such as the Child Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and CRUSE.
(14) RESOLVED that the information given on the work of the Children’s Social Services and Educational Psychologist teams, and the stringent auditing and monitoring systems which are applied, be noted, with thanks.