(a)

the plan was not an Ofsted Improvement Plan, although it focussed around the recommendations that had Ofsted made;

(b)

the plan had been submitted to Ofsted on 14 April and feedback was due

shortly;

(c)

a number of the improvement areas were ongoing;

(d)

the plan relied on working with other departments of the Council and partners/agencies;

(e)

an Improvement Board (a sub-group of the Children and Young People’s Partnership) had been established to monitor the Improvement Plan;

(f)

the following areas of the plan were highlighted–

·         1 – Ensure that practitioners have reasonable workloads  

Workloads were monitored weekly and service area action plans were in place.  Caseloads had increased, and this issue was being addressed;

·         2 – Improvement management oversight on casework and the quality of staff supervision

A new quality assurance framework was now in place and management had attended the relevant training;

·         3 – Improve the electronic social care record system so that it delivers accurate and timely data and performance information to improve the quality of service

The Care First system had been upgraded twice in the last six months which had resulted in an improvement.  A review of ICT requirements for Children’s Services was under way.  A trial of portable electronic devices was about to commence which would improve mobile working for social workers;

·         4 – Robustly challenge commissioners to ensure that child protection medical examinations are conducted without undue delay

The arrangements for child protection medicals had been discussed with medical colleagues and the waiting time was now one hour.  This would be closely monitored;

·         8 – Ensure that Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) and child protection chairs carry out their quality assurance roles in a way that provides robust scrutiny of practice and, where necessary, strong challenge

These tasks and caseloads would be reviewed in due course.  The workload had decreased, and in the interim new ways of working were being piloted to improve capacity;

·         9 – Ensure that short-term placement stability is improved for lookedafter children

Any child who was now on their third placement was a cause for concern.  A business review was under way in relation to fostering and residential provision to improve this situation;

·         14 – Work with care leavers and looked after children to develop a local care leaver ‘pledge’ that reflects their needs and that is in clear and accessible language

Work was being undertaken with the Listen and Care Council (LACC) to develop this pledge and ensure that all care leavers were aware of its existence;

·         17 – Take action to ensure that child protection conferences are held within statutory timescales and are attended by relevant partners

69% of conferences were held within 15 working days, with the figure in May 2015 standing at 78%.  Police and GP attendance remained poor, there was now a peninsular-wide protocol (with attendance targets) to improve attendance at these meetings.  The Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) would monitor these targets.

Following members’ questions it was reported that –

(g)

the ‘partners’ referred to in area 5 were the Police, health partners, Designated Nurse for Children and Young People, health visitors and schools.  The Multi Agency Child Sexual Exploitation (MACSE) meetings were chaired by the Police;

(h)

the frequency for strategic MACSE meetings was every quarter, and operational MACSE meetings was monthly.  These meetings were well attended;

(i)

continuity of social workers was being addressed.  Children were now initially assessed by one social worker and then referred to the appropriate social worker to process their case;

(j)

GP attendance at Child Protection conferences was poor due to pressures on their capacity and time.  Processes were in force to ensure that relevant agencies were kept informed of the progress of the conferences;

(k)

the number of staff who attended the ‘training’ referred to in area 15 was not known, however attendance at training sessions would now be closely monitored;

(l)

the reasons for delays in holding Child Protection conferences was not known, however any delay would have been caused by a genuine issue.