The Corporate Director Social Services and Wellbeing submitted a report, that provided the Committee with information in respect of the most recent Child Practice Review (WB B 15 2014) published on 24 August 2016.

She explained of the background to the report and of the sad story surrounding the case in question. The Corporate Director Social Services and Wellbeing, also advised that the term Child Practice Review had replaced the previous term for cases of this nature recognised as Serious Case Reviews.

She then advised that there were two types of Child Practice Reviews, and these were Concise Reviews or Extended Reviews. Further explanation of these and the difference between the two was detailed in Paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of the report.

The report also advised that going forward in this area, it was important for multi-agency groups to work closely together, in order to avoid sad occurrences such as the one subject of the report arising in future and lessons being learnt. That meant close liaison, investigation and sharing of information between statutory bodies such as Social Services, the Police, Health and the Probation Office amongst others. The Corporate Director Social Services and Wellbeing added that agencies such as the above came together as part of a Safeguarding Board that had been established as part of Western Bay.

This section of the report advised also of two further Reviews that were currently ongoing.

The Head of Children’s Social Care then gave a powerpoint Presentation with regard to the Child Practice Review published last August.

A Member asked, if despite the lessons that had been learnt as a result of the above case, was there still a risk of disconnection between key organisations such as Health and BCBC in terms of monitoring of vulnerable children and families and the consequences of any failings regarding this from a lack of communication between these bodies.

The Head of Children’s Social Care confirmed that there was always some element of risk in terms multi-agency child protection agencies communicating and sharing information to an optimum level, however, it was about putting in place polices, plans, procedures and mechanisms, that would hopefully eradicate these situations taking place. She added that a Specialist Health Visitor’s post had been introduced and a person had been appointed to this position, and things such as this and Social Workers along with employees from Health in localised Hubs had resulted in an improved way of working.

The Corporate Director Social Services and Wellbeing added, that recently a new community care information system had also gone live, which would improve methods of engagement with agencies such as ABMU, and that this system would be expanded to other key organisations over the next 18 months or so.

A Member asked Officers how many other children and/or families were in a situation of risk similar to L, and had she been on the Child Protection Register.

The Head of Children’s Social Care advised that the Review carried out had been a Concise Review, as it satisfied the criteria of this as opposed to the Extended Review criteria. One of the criteria of a Concise Review, was due to the fact that L was not on the Child Protection Register when the review was carried out. By way of background information, she added that if a child was referred to Social Services, Social Workers had to ascertain the level of care and support that was required for the individual, including whether or not the case should be closed and the child referred to other specialist services, or retained within the auspices of the local authority with the view of Social Services providing the child with a suitable Care Support Plan. There were around 800 children residing within the County Borough currently being provided such a Plan. If it was a case of a Child Protection issue and the local authority considered that the child was at risk of harm, then it would be necessary to involve bodies such as the South Wales Police and other multi-agency organisations. At this stage the child would then be placed on the Child Protection Register, and would have put in place a Child Protection Plan.

The Head of Children’s Social Care added that if a child becomes looked after, this was due to the environment they were in at the time, ie that they find themselves in an unsafe or uncompromising position. An example of this she added, was if a Child Protection Plan put in place had not worked out as had been firstly anticipated.

A Member asked if any contact took place between siblings who were looked after, and any immediate family such as parents or grandparents etc.

The Head of Children’s Social Care advised that the Social Services Department always promoted contact in situations such as this, other than if the child had been adopted or placed with foster parents. Even in these situations however, the natural parent(s) could still keep in contact with the child via correspondence.

The Chief Executive added that anything that had previously fallen between two stools in relation to this particular Child Practice Review or in respect certain other cases had been addressed through the likes of Action Plans put in place by the Western Bay Safeguarding Board, and these Plans applied to all reviews irrespective if they were in respect of children or adults. This was more on a national wider basis, however, a more local Action Plan had also been introduced through the Corporate Safeguarding Board.

The Cabinet Member Adult Social Care and Health and Wellbeing asked if the circumstances regarding the Child Practice Review (WB B 15 2014) could in any way have been avoided if the case had been managed more closely.

The Corporate Director Social Services and Wellbeing confirmed that a subsequent Review undertaken in respect of the way this case had been dealt with and managed, highlighted that unfortunately the outcome would have been the same as it was in any event.

A Member asked Officers what was considered as a suitable caseload for Social Workers, and how the Directorate could ensure that any future recommendations that are made in respect of a Review are carried out, especially in the face of continued limited resources.

The Head of Children’s Social Care advised that Social Workers would normally have a maximum of 17 cases at any one time, and these are monitored. Unfortunately however, a minority of Social Workers had higher cases than this due to ongoing high workloads, though this was also being monitored with a view to reducing these to a more manageable level. This was difficult though, as the work was of high importance and the amount of incoming cases was to all intents and purposes not controllable. Management were also looking at ways to ensure steps are put in place in terms of more effective methods being applied not just with regard to the recruitment of Social Workers, but also in terms of retaining these Officers.

The Chairperson asked if all the actions recommended in the appropriate Action Plan had now been implemented, including by agencies external to the local authority.

The Head of Children’s Social Care advised that all the recommendations made that related to the work areas of Children’s Social Care had been addressed, and that she would check with the other multi-agency groups to see if they had also addressed any recommendations that came under the direct responsibility of them, and give feedback to the Chairperson outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED:                    That the Cabinet Committee Corporate Parenting noted the report.