Agenda item

To receive and consider the Children’s Services Performance Indicators report.

Sudeshna Banerjee, Service Manager Intelligence and Impact and Depak Patel, Children’s Social Care Analyst Lead presented the report.

During the presentation and discussions, the following comments were made:

·           It was noted that around 30% of EHCPs were placed out of the Borough, and that the reason for this was that Wokingham did not have a FE College, most of Post-16 cohort were placed in out of Borough provisions.  Members wondered if there were other reasons for this and what the implications were, such as cost and children’s welfare;

·           Sudeshna Banerjee stated that she did not have the information about the cost, she confirmed that the main reason for the high percentage of out of Borough placements was the lack of places in Wokingham.  She added that there was also a number of high complex needs that required out of Borough placements;

·           Members noted the increase in the number of HHCPs and the drop in the number of EHCPs issued within 20 weeks of referral, and asked if there was an issue with capacity and what was being done to address those issues;

·           Sudeshna Banerjee stated that the Children’s Services workforce had been hit hard by covid since November, the main issue was not receiving information by 12 weeks from partners;

·           Helen Watson stated that Wokingham had a very proactive Innovation Improvement Programme (IIP) Board which was keeping oversight of the demand in relation to ECPs and places;

·           A Member asked for more information in relation to Early Help.  Depak Patel informed that normally it was parents or partner agencies that asked for help.  This was on a voluntary basis and there was no child protection concern;

·           A Members asked how long it would take to assess 100% of front door referrals.  Depak Patel stated that this depended on the complexity of the case and whether there was good engagement with the family and agency though the process;

·           Adam Davis, Assistant Director for Children’s Social Care and Early Help stated that the Council’s website had a lot of information about the offer of Early Help;

·           A Members asked what was the number of assessments that progressed to referrals.  Depak Patel informed that this was regularly monitored by the service and that there was no target number;

·           A Members asked what was the impact of agency workers in the workforce.  Adam Davis explained that there was a difference between stability and permanence in the workforce.  There was a local and national challenge with staff permanence, which had been exacerbated by the pandemic.  This was an area of focus, to try and improve permanence.  Recently, the Council had signed a memorandum of cooperation in relation to how to employ interim workers to try and prevent workers moving from permanent positions to interim posts, with the local authorities across the southeast region;

·           Members asked for reassurance that nothing was being missed, in relation to the number of assessments that did not progress to referrals;

·           Adam Davis stated that there was a risk both way, in terms of over assessing those that did not need it and those that maybe need it.  Audits and reviews were undertaken to ascertain that proportionate threshold were being achieved;

·           A Member asked what was the profile of the children missing from home/care.  Depak Patel stated that the ages varied but were predominantly teenagers.  Usually the parents or carers reported the child missing for some hours, and the police would look for them.  Sometimes they turned up at home some hours later.  Adam Davis explained that this definition was a police definition of missing from home for a number of hours, and the responses varied depending on the case;

·           A Member asked if there were any trends in the children missing from home/care dashboard.  Depak Patel informed that there were no trends, but sometimes the numbers were higher in particular periods such as Christmas;

·           A Member asked if there were any particular concerns in relation to particular groups (gender, ethnicity or other), and suggested that this information could be provided outside of the meeting;

·           A Member asked if there was cause for concern in relation to the decline in the number of return home interviews carried out on time;

·           Depak Patel informed that sometimes the same child could go missing several times in the same period of time, also the child could refuse to have a return home interview.  Adam Davis stated that this was closely monitored by the service;

·           Adam Davis explained that the service was more concerned about what the pull factor were in relation to those children that went missing (rather than focusing on statistics about particular groups);

·           A Member asked if agency staff were more likely to be deployed to work with a particular group or cohort of children, and whether a group of children may potentially be disadvantaged by having a high turn over of social workers;

·           Adam Davis explained that agency workers were deployed where there was a need or a vacancy, rather than it being related to a particular cohort.  He added that Looked After Children had the lowest number of locums.  However, he added that some areas were harder to recruit due to the nature of the work.  The service was particularly careful to not hold vacancies in the front door team.

RESOLVED That the report be noted.