To advise Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee of the recommendations for improvement, following the Joint Area Review (JAR) and to indicate progress so far.

The Committee were advised of the recommendations for improvement following the Joint Area Review (JAR) and informed of progress to date.

Copies of the Joint Area Review – Herefordshire Children’s Services Authority Area inspection report had been previously issued to Members of the Committee.

The Director of Children’s Services reported that as a result of the JAR inspection report a JAR Improvement Plan had been sent to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and the Department of Education and Skills (DfES).  The outcome of their assessment of the Service’s capacity to improve as a result of the Improvement Plan was still awaited.

She reported that the first four recommendations in the JAR report were the most critical for improving on Staying Safe, and these were set out in the agenda report.  The judgement that Staying Safe was in adequate, identified in the JAR inspection report, was a serious concern for the Council and its partners.  This had led, alongside the Adult Social Care assessment, to a position of “0” star for Herefordshire for Social Care.  She emphasised that the necessary improvement must deliver confidence in the County that children were properly referred and assessed against revised criteria.

The JAR inspection report identified a number of recommendations which had been graded ‘for immediate action’; ‘action over the next six months’ and ‘action in the longer term’.  In relation to the ‘immediate’ recommendations the Director reported that recommendations 1 and 2 had been developed for implementation in March 2006.  Recommendation 3 was progressing to the agreed timetable and recommendation 4 had already been acted on.

She further reported that as a follow on from the JAR inspection, there would be a routine Annual Performance Assessment (APA) for Children’s Services in Herefordshire. This would be an opportunity for the Service to demonstrate and evidence the improvements made.

The Committee noted that the Strategic Monitoring Committee had indicated that they were keen to be engaged in the future monitoring of the Improvement Plan and therefore it would be important for both Chairs of Strategic Monitoring and this Committee to be properly briefed about the Plan as soon as the endorsement was forthcoming.

During the course of debate the following principal points were noted:

• That, in hindsight, the evidence used in compiling the JAR self-assessment may not have been sufficiently robust, however, it had been considered sound at the time.  The APA would demonstrate whether the Service had moved forward.
• The turnover of staff was not necessarily an indicator of staff morale.  On the whole Social Workers had done well from Job Evaluation.  However, the Service had 80% of its complement and recruitment was a common national problem.  At the time of the inspection the Service had lost a number of key officers due to death, retirement and relocation. The 3rd ‘immediate action’ recommendation (effective workforce strategy) would also be looked at during Staff Review & Development process.
• The criteria for referral at level 1 set out in the Child Concern Model (CCM) was being revised through consultation with partners and cross-agency meetings. A handout was issued indicating the current proposal.  The Model attempted to define the appropriate range and level of response to the child’s individual situation and to plan for any associated risk.  The Committee expressed concern that the CCM had been found lacking and questioned whether common criteria were used to assess the various agencies involved in the CCM.  The Committee noted that the number of children in each level varied according current need.  The Director intended to include information on the Child Concern Model ‘criteria’ in a forthcoming Member’s seminar on the Family Support Service.
• While Children’s Centres and Sure Start facilities were providing a valuable service, the Children’s Partnership Board would need to look at the level of provision, particularly in relation to preventative work. The facilities needed to be open and a safe place to get advice.
• While debating Children’s Centres and Sure Start it was suggested that these services concentrated on the pre-high school age range and that there appeared to be a gap in provision for the older age range.  In response the Committee noted that while Family Services had an integrated approach this would be further developed.
• The Committee noted the restrictive funding available for further Children’s Centres.
• The Director highlighted that high transport costs and physical access to Children’s Centres or Extended Schools, particularly out-side school hours, were factors that would make expanding or developing their provision an extremely challenging target.
• A revised Early Intervention Strategy was being developed for implementation in May/June 2006.
• Responding to questions on performance monitoring procedures (JAR para 82) and in particular the wider range of issues affecting a child’s well-being (illustrated at JAR para 72 – affordable housing) the Director of Children’s Services reported that key targets for the Directorate would in future be reported to the Committee for monitoring.  She acknowledged that links to other aspects, e.g. affordable housing, also needed to be made.  However, housing was primarily scrutinised by the Adult Social Care and Strategic Housing Scrutiny Committee and scrutinising the planning, provision and operation of health services was in the remit of the Health Scrutiny Committee.  While acknowledging the individual remit of the Committee, the Committee highlighted the need for the close liaison between the Committees to ensure a co-ordinated approach to children’s/young persons well-being.
• Continuing the theme of performance monitoring, and in particular against ‘statistical family’ and national Performance Indicators (PIs), the Director reported that the Looked After Service was performing at a level above the national average.  However, the position regarding ‘referrals’ was not satisfactory.
• The Head of School Improvement reported that where possible comparable data would be used.  However, as illustrated by JAR paragraph 13 – in relation to ‘gaining qualification at 16’, the data used in the JAR had had to be the 2004 statistics.  Had the 2005 data been used, which at the time had been awaiting auditing, a much more favourable position would have been indicated.
• The early provision of holistic mediation was very important as various causes of stress in the family, which could lead to homelessness etc, impinge on the welfare of children or young persons.
• The Director reported that the accuracy of recording of contacts (JAR immediate action recommendation 4) had been examined and the procedure employed by the Duty Team had been revised.  The JAR inspectors checked the decision-making procedures and no concerns were found.
• Responding to JAR para 43 – ‘Initial referrals are assessed by unqualified workers….’ The Director reported that this was not the case as qualified workers made the decisions and the team manager monitored the situation.
• The Committee noted that issues reported in JAR paras 39 and 42 relating to the Child Concern Model and staff training and highlighted at the first bullet point in the ‘six month’ recommendations, had been picked up in the draft Improvement Plan and would be reported upon at a future meeting when the agreed Improvement Plan would be considered.
• A survey of neighbouring authorities had been undertaken to establish staff levels in Social Services and, in view of the potential for an increase in workload following the revised CCM criteria, 2 additional Social Workers had been commissioned.
• During discussion on the development and retention of staff and the reason for staff leaving, which may be identified by exit interviews, the Director reported that this was one ingredient involved in addressing the third bullet point in the ‘immediate’ recommendations, in relation to an effective workforce strategy.

The Committee expressed a wish to undertake a series of fact-finding visits to observe the various services within the Directorate so that they could better appreciate the work undertaken.

RESOLVED:

            THAT

a)      the report on the Joint Area Review be noted;

b)     the Improvement Plan resulting from the JAR inspection and any implications arising there from be reported to the next meeting;

c)      a performance monitoring report on performance against the JAR Improvement Plan, Performance Indicators etc be included in the work programme for future meetings; and

d)     the Director of Children’s Services arrange for the Committee to undertake a series of fact-finding visits to the various services within the Directorate.