For the Children and Young people Scrutiny Committee to note and consider the summary of complaints received in relation to children’s services.

 

The Complaints and Children’s Rights Manager introduced and gave an overview of the report. The key points covered included:

 

-          The report focused on the municipal year from April 2023 to March 2024

-          It looked at corporate complaints and statutory children’s complaints representations that were made to the local authority.

-          The report showed an increase in complaints, but also an increase in responses and improvement in response times to complaints.

-          The report showed a decrease in escalations to stage a two and stage three of the statutory procedure.

-          An error was corrected to reflect that 77% of complaints were resolved at stage one of the process and not 81% as was shown in the report itself.

-          The report showed the number of referrals that were submitted by the Local Government Ombudsmen in the last year and compared that against data from the previous five years (since children’s complaints were moved into corporate services).

-          The report showed that 56 complaints across the whole council were submitted to the ombudsmen, 12 of those related to children services and 7 of those were fully investigated.

-          The report included a breakdown of the types of complaints received. Clarity was provided on service failure complaints, which in some instances could simply relate to a follow up phone call not being made or email not being, so these were not necessarily major complaints.

-          Common reasons for complaint escalation were included.

-          It was highlighted that there was a persistent increase in complaints, but both the complaints and children’s services were continuing to work on improving with ongoing improvements to the procedure.

-          Responding to complaints within timescales had improved significantly over the last 12 months.

 

The Chair invited comments and discussion from the committee in relation to the report. The key points of the discussion are detailed below:

 

1.     The committee enquired about how the service and users would know that complaints being received were actually informing and improving practice.

 

·       The Complaints and Children’s Rights Manager explained that when a complaint was assigned to an investigating officer they would complete a lessons learned template, which was fed back to and collated by the complaints service. The responsibility of learning from complaints fell to the service area the complaint was made about.

·       When a complaint was escalated to stage two or three of the statutory process, independent investigating officers would make recommendations that would relate to both the complaints service and children’s services, and these recommendations would be taken forward to improve the practice, with any recommended changes being embedded in the practice of social workers, team managers and everybody involved.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People emphasised the importance of collating the learning logs, as these helped in developing new practice standards and changes in policy that could be implemented across the service. Learning issues relating to individuals and teams could be addressed via training or management intervention within the service.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People emphasised the importance of recording and sharing data relating to compliments received about the service. The director provided examples of ‘Shout outs’, whereby compliments and praise received from the public and workers for staff and teams within the service could be highlighted and learned from.

 

2.     The committee asked if complainants were notified of changes to the service/actions taken as a result of their complaints.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that complainants would be notified of recommendations for actions to be taken forward as part of their complaint outcome.

 

3.     A committee member pointed out that the report only provided statistical date on complaints rather than actual examples of complaints.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that the report was intended to give an overview of the complaints service, but stated that providing example of complaints would not be problematic.

·       As part of Phase 2 of the Improvement Plan and working with partners in Leeds, the intention was to make the complaints process even more robust, by ensuring the complainants were spoken with at the beginning of the complaint process and that audits were in place to check this was taking place.

·       Using independent people to undertake investigations at stage one of the process was another improvement being considered.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People suggested that the committee may want to revisit progress being made through the Improvement Plan at the end of the year.

 

4.     The committee enquired if it might be possible to arrange an informal session with families and get feedback from them about the process. The importance of obtaining input from young people and families was stressed.

 

5.     The Committee asked what was being to remedy the culture of failing to address the central core of complaint.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that at the beginning of the process the complaints team would record and establish the accuracy of what the parent or young person wished to complain about.

·       It was explained that the additional value of an investigator meeting at the outset, was that they could provide their understanding of the complaint and then agree, in writing, with the complainant what the scope and anticipated outcomes of the complaint were. Holding a conversation at the outset about what could and couldn’t be achieved through the process was extremely important.

·       It was important that right at the start of the process complainants understood and were shown how to access each stage of the complaints procedure and what could and couldn’t be achieved through the process.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People stressed that there was a desire to bring complaint levels down, but suggested it was important to maintain a sense of perspective when considering the number of complaints received in relation to the number of families and young people the service was working with.

 

6.     A committee member asked if there was a mechanism in place for adoptive parents to input feedback or make complaints about the service.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that when an individual had adopted a child they had the same rights to make a complaint or offer feedback as anybody else. The complaints process was there for everybody to use. The Director also pointed out that Herefordshire Council worked within ACE (Adoption Central England), which ran support and information groups for all adoptive parents.

 

7.     The committee asked what could be expected if the authority was operating at an outstanding level, such as Leeds was, and how would it be possible to measure and establish the impact the complaints service was having.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People stated that one of the best ways of understanding whether a complaints process was working, was if complaints were reducing. A reduction and stabilising of the level of complaints would be in evidence, but there would still be a level of complaints in evidence.

·       There were breakdowns that could be done of specific service areas to establish if complaints were coming in from a particular part of the service and compliments would also highlight and provide feedback as to where the service was having a positive impact.

·       The service didn’t currently formally ask parents and children whether they felt that a complaint had been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, but this could be incorporated in future. It was suggested that if complainants didn’t progress to stage two of the process then that was an indicator that they were satisfied with the outcome at stage one of the investigation.

 

8.     The committee suggested that people not moving on to stage two of the process did not necessarily mean they were satisfied with the outcome of stage one and that there were other factors that may have influenced their decision not to pursue the complaint any further - they may simply have felt that there was no point.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People acknowledged that some people might not move to stage two because they felt there was no point or, through communication with the service, understood that stage two would and could not achieve the outcome they desired.

·       The Director believed that in many cases the core of the original complaint was dealt with at stage one and complainants were happy that their issue had been resolved,

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager pointed out that complaints weren’t closed without having any correspondence with the complainant, and phone calls and emails were used to follow up and establish if complainants were satisfied with the process and response. Complaints were only closed after a defined period of time.

 

9.     The committee enquired what mechanisms were in place to demonstrate that changes, such as restorative practice training, were actually impacting practice and culture within the service.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that they felt the culture of an organisation was the people. A training course would not necessarily develop a culture, and that culture was defined by the way people spoke and interacted with one another.

 

10.  The committee enquired as to whether or not a rising numbers of complaints should be seen as a positive or negative development.

 

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager suggested that rising numbers of complaints could be an indication that the work done over the last 18 months, in embedding an effective complaints procedure, had resulted in a higher level of complaints flowing through.

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager stated they were under no illusion that the service was perfect, but felt that the increase perhaps indicated that some, but not all families, felt they could come and make a complaint and that the service would: listen to them, hear their concerns and work with them to seek resolution whether that was at a stage one or two of the process.

·       The service was keen to reassure people that complaints were being taken very seriously by the council and the increase may have been the product of making the complaints process more accessible. Feedback to the service indicated some families were encouraging other disillusioned families to try using the complaints process, because the system had changed.

·       The complaints website page and contact details had been streamlined for ease of use, there was a permanent team of staff in place and the complaints service had been separated from the freedom of information service.

 

11.  The committee asked for an update on historic complaints and a timescale for when a line would be drawn under those complaints.

 

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager explained that rather than having the service manage existing concerns, the previous Corporate Director had agreed that families should be offered the option to go through the complaints procedure again. Not all families had chosen to do this, as they were disillusioned with the process, but the service was offering reassurance that the procedure was different and that the statutory guidance was now being followed.

·       The service had been able to resolve many of the historic complaints, and those that remained outstanding were often the result of to people not wishing to utilise the complaints procedure. Efforts were being made to encourage people to use the improved process, but the service did not wish to push anybody into using a procedure they did not feel comfortable with.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that in terms of drawing a line under historic cases there was not an open door for people to come in with complaints that dated back years and years, partly because investigating such cases would not likely result in an historic outcome/decision being overturned or add value.

·       Historic cases in the system would be completed where possible, but staff and resources now had to be concentrated on dealing with peoples’ current experiences.

 

12.  The committee asked if the service was satisfied with the speed and manner in which complaints were being processed and dealt with.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People stated that there was room for improvement, but the timeliness of completing complaint investigations had improved.

 

13.  The committee enquired if personality clashes were considered as complaints.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People stated that personality clashed were not a category as such, but where a complaint or concern was raised about a member of staff, then that worker and the manager would have a conversation about the complaint and reflect on what had happened.

 

14.  The committee asked about the process of requesting a change of social worker.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained it was important to listen to the voice of and recognise the needs of the child rather than the parent in certain instances where a change of social worker was being requested. Building good relations was paramount to achieving positive outcomes, but where a relationship between a social worker and family was not working well there were mechanisms for adjustment.

 

15.  A member of the committee asked how they could check that what they were being told by officers was the same as what the public would reflect, especially in instances where questions being asked by committee members on behalf of members of the public were met with data protection restricted responses.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that the reason the service would not go into detail about issues members of the public raised with committee members was that it would result in a duplication for the service. Members of the public were advised on and had access to the complaints process, which they could use themselves. Using scrutiny to discuss a complaint that was going through the stages of the process would essentially result in unwanted duplication of work, which was a drain on time and resources. Scrutiny was about looking at the big processes rather than focusing on individual cases.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People stated that one of the key elements of Phase 2 of the Improvement Plan would be reaching out to more children, young people and their parents to obtain proactive feedback on the service rather than waiting for complaints to come in. Comments gathered at the end of assessments, interventions, conferences and child protection meetings would provide the service with opportunities to obtain ‘here and now’ feedback on how users were finding the service.

 

16.  The committee enquired as to what data the service had in relation to people who weren’t complaining, and whether people from certain ethnic backgrounds or particular parts of the system were less likely to complain.

 

17.  The committee considered whether groups were not complaining because the system was working well or because the mechanisms for them to complain weren’t in place.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that any questions asked about the complainant were voluntary.

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager stated that the only information available about the complainant was what the complainant was willing to provide, and that information requested by the service related to what their involvement with the child was. There were no request for gender, ethnic background and other such information.

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager had discussed the issue with the Equality Officer, who had concluded that if complainants wished to provide additional personal information they could.

·       The service did not wish to deter people from complaining by asking them to complete a form at the same time as they were making a complaint.

 

18.  The committee acknowledged the rationale behind the approach, but were concerned that it meant the service didn’t know if there were particular groups shut out of the complaints process.

 

19.  The committee suggested that such knowledge gaps could potentially be filled through the use of occasional surveys.

 

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager stated they were happy to take the suggestion regarding surveys forward as a recommendation.

 

20.  The committee asked how the corporate director intended to stop the process of duplication and resulting trauma caused by certain families having to go through and repeat the complaints process again and again with no satisfactory resolution.

 

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People explained that they were not going to repeat what their predecessors had done. The key issue was to find out what the outcome the complainants - be they historic or otherwise - wanted to achieve and then to have an honest conversation with them about whether that was an achievable outcome or not. It was noted that anybody anticipating that there would be a satisfactory outcome reported by every individual parent that had made a historic complaint, would likely be disappointed, because not all cases would necessarily be resolved with the desired outcome.

·       The service was not intending to duplicate or ask families to duplicate what they had been doing, but would instead focus attention on what it was families were seeking as an outcome and to make sure that there was due process.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People hoped to have the historic cases completed by March 2025, but if this was not the case, then any successor would be given very clear guidelines about what was outstanding, so that there was no further duplication.

 

21.  The committee requested a description of how the complaint had been dealt with historically.

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager provided an overview of the operation of the service and noted that one of the biggest changes and improvements in the new operation was in the way that complaints were being dealt with through the statutory process rather than corporately.

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager stated that all complainants were advised that they could contact the Ombudsmen about their complaint at any time throughout the process.

·       The expectations of complainants were managed by explaining that in many instances the Ombudsmen would conclude that the complainant had approached them prematurely and return the case back to the local authority until earlier stages in the process had been completed/exhausted.

 

22.  The committee enquired about the rise in complaints that the Ombudsmen had deemed to be premature and returned to the authority.

 

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager suspected it was about educating and sharing information with families to make sure that families understood the local authority’s complaints procedure and when would be advisable to approach the Ombudsmen. This could potentially be communicated effectively via the Council’s website.

 

23.  The committee raised concerns about two similar complaints to the Ombudsmen – regarding correct process not being followed and applied - being upheld within a six month period and what action had been taken to avoid this occurring again.

 

·       The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager explained the process could be difficult to follow and was currently being looked at by the NCMG (National Complaints Manager Group) and hopefully the review would result in clearer guidance, which would make it easier to determine which process should be followed.

 

24.  The committee suggested that it should have more frequent sight of the complaint pipeline and information about resolved complaints.

·       The Corporate Director Children and Young People stated they would be happy to provide the committee with a quarterly report on the data the service was receiving, although there would need to be guidance from the committee to officers regarding whether the reports were being requested as information only documents or for use as substantive agenda item reports.

 

·       The Cabinet Member Children and Young People, stressed the most significant issue as being the need to rebuild trust and confidence in the service. There was still a significant way to go, but it was reassuring to see that certain families had gained confidence in the service to such an extent that they had stepped forward to become part of the improvement journey.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, the committee discussed potential recommendations and the following resolutions were agreed.

Resolved that:

1.       That Herefordshire Council review and revise the information on its website concerning complaints, to include information on the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman process, and information on where to seek assistance.

2. For the children and young people service to report to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee within six months on the demand, flow, and timeliness of complaints. The report should include an analysis of those complaints and the ongoing development of the complaints process.
3. That scrutiny recognises the work undertaken in partnership with Leeds City Council around complaints and asks that consideration be given to

i.         having an independent professional investigate and document the complaint and desired outcome