Agenda item

To review the recent inspection report. 

Jane Rodgers and Ben Anderson introduced the report which was a performance evaluation of the children's services by Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW), highlighting the strengths and areas for improvement identified by the inspection report. Ben Anderson, CIW, commented that the inspection overall was positive and that there was evidence of ongoing development of the service since February. He highlighted the focus going forward would be to focus on practice and quality to ensure compliance with statutory duties and to capture the voice of children. Diane Corrister answered the members’ questions in detail, together with Jane Rodgers and Ben Anderson. 

Key points made by Members: 

• Members asked how leaders are having greater oversight of the quality of assessments and plans and noted that training, quality assurance, and implementation support was being provided to staff.  

• A member asked for an explanation of the new practice model and the Early Help Assessment Team.  

• Clarity was sought on what improvements are being made to bring practice in line with Welsh safeguarding procedures. 

• Another member sought clarity on the compliance with paperwork for child protection conferences and how much advocacy parents are offered prior to a case conference stage.  

• The committee questioned the main strengths and areas for improvement identified by the inspection report, noting the report had recognised the positive outcomes achieved for children looked after, the family support offer, and the morale and leadership within the service as strengths. Areas for improvement were acknowledged to include responding to and dealing with the impact of demand across the service, and making sure that the workforce corresponds with those levels of demand.  

• Members asked for an explanation as to how the team was addressing the issue of demand and workforce capacity in the service, to retain staff and reduce the reliance on agency workers.  

• Members sought to ensure that the voice of children is captured in a consistent and meaningful way and according to the age of the child and then reflected in assessments and care plans. 

• A member referred to paragraph 4.8 in the report which suggested a cautious approach to risk management, questioning whether given our lower than national average number of children looked after, there may be a contradiction. The officers clarified that to an extent, this is because of the impact of demand on the front door; and that strengths-based practice needed to be more consistent across all areas of the service.  

• Members asked for clarity on the outcomes of the platform service for young people's emotional health.  

• Another member queried the increase in referrals and also inappropriate referrals and how these could be reduced, noting that this is currently subject to a data and audit analysis to understand the sources and the reasons for the referrals. Members requested a report on this be brought back to them at the appropriate point, with officers confirming this should be available after September. Action: Jane Rodgers and Diane Corrister.  

• A member commented that the threshold document assisted the addressing of the increase in figures, and asked whether the team engages with partner agencies in a way that they can understand and share their perspective. 

• Members queried how the referrals from education and health compare with other Gwent authorities and what might be possible gaps in the support structures of these agencies.  

• A member asked for more clarity on how the single point of access operates in practice and whether it could be replicated in other areas. 

• The committee questioned the timeliness of child protection visits and case conferences outlined in paragraph 1.4 and asked whether the desired improvement had been achieved in terms of ensuring conferences take place on an earlier and timely basis. 

• Members asked for clarity on the role of the coach and how their impact would be measured. 

• The reasons for the difference in the volume of referrals and how that was being managed was clarified.  

• The committee asked whether the service had streamlined their processes to become more effective.  

• A member asked officers how confident they were that there aren’t cases that were not on the radar of Social Services. Officers advised that it would be naive to think all cases would be on the radar of social services, but that they were confident that the Council was doing more over-intervention than under-intervention. Officers added that the Council has good safeguarding structures and training across the organisation, but they could never be 100% confident that cases could occur. 

• The report under paragraph 2.10 refers to ‘most staff’ being supported, CIW were asked for further clarity on this, as in what are the reasons for the small number of staff not being on board and whether you believe working practices since Covid have had an effect.  

• The committee commented on the use of acronyms and that a glossary would be helpful, particularly for reports in the public domain.  

The Cabinet Member drew some closing remarks, and the committee were satisfied with the answers to questions asked. 

Chair’s Summary: 

The committee congratulated the service on the positive inspection and the leadership comments and children and foster care feedback. The chair concluded that the committee had undertaken detailed scrutiny of the report together with members of the Performance and Overview Scrutiny Committee and was satisfied with the outcome of the inspection.