Children & Families Overview & Scrutiny Committee

5.1 The Head of Children & Family Services gave a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the following areas: · There were similar themes raised between the CIW national review and this report. Advocacy for children and their attendance at meetings was highlighted for improvement. This would need different considerations for disabled children to ensure their voices were heard. · There were a low number of self-referrals for support for Parents and Carers with disabled children across Torfaen which was unexpected. · At the time of the report there were two disabled children in unregulated placements but these had since been moved to appropriate regulated placements. 5.2 Following Members’ questions and comments, the Head of Children’s Services and Group Manager made the following main points: • The shared Occupation Therapist between the Disabled Children’s Team and Adult Services was felt to be sufficient. Whilst there were still waiting lists for certain assessments and grants, this was significantly lower to previously. • The recruitment and retention of Social Workers continued to be difficult, especially in respect of experienced staff. However, there was both value and benefits in hiring newly qualified Social Workers due to up-to-date learning and fresh ideas, but this required an increased level of support from managers. • The last open vacancy for a Social Worker within the Disabled Children Team was not filled and was instead changed to a Community Support Worker post. This was appropriate as there were currently no statutory requirement for any child within the service to be supported by a qualified Social Worker. Only Children on the Child Protection register or Looked After (CLA) were required to have a qualified Social Worker and those on a Care and Support Plan could be supported by a Community Support Worker overseen by a Social Worker. • There was a bursary for two employees per year to undertake their Social Work Qualification and this received a high level of interest. • The management capacity for the Disabled Children Team (DCT) was healthy and managers had excellent oversight over all cases. If there was a time where a large number of children open to DCT were added to the Child Protection Register or CLA, there would be consideration to adjusting the roles within the team. • Each case open with DCT tended to individual families which needed to be considered when managing caseloads. There were a large number of Children open to DCT that were only open in order to receive direct payments, therefore did not require any intervention or support. • In some cases appropriate action could be decided on a referral without the need for any further progression. However, in most cases further enquiries needed to be made to ensure the referral was dealt with appropriately. · As known from previous scrutiny activities, placement sufficiency was an issue faced by the whole of Children Services. More complex needs of children could cause further difficulty in finding suitable placements but there were a number of highly skilled Foster Carers able to meet these needs. · Foster Carers were not specifically assessed regarding complex need skills but were provided support and upskilling if they showed interest. • The mentor scheme had not been maintained as there had been a high level of staffing changes. Many lessons had been learnt from the previous mentor scheme and there was now work being undertaken with other Local Authorities who had successfully embedded a similar scheme. • In the case of a mentor leaving their role, they would be expected to pass their role on prior to leaving as a part of their notice period. It was hoped that three months’ notice was enough time for this to be undertaken. • Whilst there was succession planning considered when a staff member left Social Services, retention and recruitment issues made it extremely difficult to ensure there was no gap once a staff member left, even with a 3 month notice period. This was a nationwide issue. • There were only five agency Social Workers used within Torfaen, none of which were in the Disabled Childrens Team. • Carer assessments were undertaken as a part of the Child’s assessments. In cases were these had been done separate, this was to enable carers access to certain grants. It had been agreed that this would be combined into the Child’s Assessment. This would be undertaken once a new assessment form had been created by the performance team in conjunction with Group Managers. • There was limited support available for disabled children aged 0-5 years old. However, there had been an increase in applications for direct payments in order to allow families to manage their care needs. These support opportunities for 0-5 were being looked at more in-depth and a further answer would be provided to the committee. • There were grants also available for equipment and Health were worked with closely to ensure all families would have the necessary equipment they need. • Short breaks for families with disabled children was an area in need of development due to shortage of provision. There were only a small number of respite opportunities across the whole service. Residential respite models were complex and costly. • The use of the Young Carer ID scheme had raised awareness and prompted a number of Young Carers to come forward and request ID. • Close links with Education also ensured a wider net of professionals to identify potential Young Carers. • Issues surrounding education staff being unaware of Young Carers had been raised and would be raised to ambassadors within Youth Forum to unsure these children were not being penalised. • A response regarding the minimum age of Young Carer provisions and available transport would be circulated to the committee. • A response regarding the stipulations of using the “Honeypot” Children’s Charity funding would be circulated to the committee. The biggest challenge faced with personal assistants was the complex level of needs. However, there were conversations being held with both Health professionals and Commissioning to address this. • There were fifty-six families currently receiving direct payments. Direct payments are usually provided to those with complex care plans or respite needs. • There were no Welsh speakers within Children Services, but support could be sourced from the Local Authority. • If a child had difficulty communicating, this would be appropriately managed through alternative forms of communication such as story boards. • In respect of different languages, a translator was sought from an appropriate company which could cause delays. • CAMHs referrals could have significant wait times dependant on the needs of the child. If a child were in crisis, there an appointment could be sought within 24 hours. Children Services had a good relationship with CAHMS and effective multi-agency relationships had a positive effect on Social Services. The average wait for a CAHMS referral would be circulated to the committee. • There was low usage of the disabled facilities grant. • The figures regarding advocacy in the report was specifically looking at NYAS advocates. However, Children can have advocacy in the form of any trusted adult who were already familiar to the child. Child focused leaflets and videos were provided to families to promote advocacy and child attendance at conferences. There would always be an appropriate person sourced in respect of advocacy if this were not an independent from NYAS and clear rationale for alternative advocacy would be provided. • The attendance of practitioners varied for each session, there were forty-two in attendance at the last session. Eventually these sessions would be recorded and provided to professionals to watch at their own convenience. There was a limited number of Education professionals in attendance at these sessions but after in-depth conversations it had been discovered that the time these were held were not suitable for teachers. • The transitioning of individuals from the Disabled Childrens Team to Adult Services was well managed. Adult Services were made aware of those who would be transitioning once they turned fourteen. Adult Services only tended to get new referrals in respect of disabled adults if the family was in a state of crisis such as their entitlement changing. • In respect of the process that was created in respect of transition support, a response would be circulated to the committee regarding the current progress of this. • The Continuing Care Lead role was to identify all children through Gwent who would need continuing support. The Lead would support these children with applications and any funding they may require. There were good multi-agency relationships with Health to help identify these children. There could be delays with health making decisions surrounding continuing care but it was ensured these delays did not impact the family. • It was legislative requirement for a disabled children register to be available but families could not be compelled to declare this information if they did not wish to. Children Services had now taken responsibility for this register and work would be undertaken to promote the benefits associated with registering. • The two currently registered were accidental. • The difference between Aides to Daily Living and DFG’s would be communicated to the committee in due course. • There was rarely any need for Children Services to help with the costs of specialist equipment as there were appropriate funding sources available for families when needed. • Children within DCT were subject to regular care plan reviews which will either be attended or informed by the Health Board. If this were a complex case these multi-agency meetings could be held as often as weekly. • There was a specific complex case panel that was chaired by the Interim Head of Children Services held on a monthly basis. • The feedback within appendix 2 would be analysed by the Group and Team Manager to ensure the voice of children and families was being heard. • There had been six feedback responses from parents and one response from a young person in respect of appendix 2. A response would be circulated to the committee with the exact number of surveys sent out to families. • There would be further investigation into the comments stating that support had not been accessed until the family was at crisis point to understand the causes of this. Stigma of Social Services was felt to be an issue in this case. • The criteria for DCT support was quite strict so a number of families may have been offered lower-level services prior to Children Services intervention. • Children needs and wants were captured at least every 6 weeks. If a child were on the Child Protection Register, this would be sought every 10 days. • In respect of forms required for identifying a placement for a child, these would not necessarily be updated unless another placement needed to be sought. 6.3 The Head of Children & Family Services and Group Manager thanked the committee for their questions. 6.4 The Chair thanked the officers for their contributions to the meeting and they left the meeting. 6.5 On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following comments and recommendations for consideration: Recommendation 1:- Concerns were raised regarding the low number of self-referrals as well as registrations on the register of Disabled Children within Torfaen. The formal review of this system should be progressed as a priority. Understanding why registrations were so low, would enable us to focus promotion and engagement activity to increase numbers, which would then inform future service design and aide in raising awareness of self-referral processes. Recommendation 2:- The committee welcomed the commitment in working with our young carers and siblings of disabled children. To strengthen this further, members recommended the Executive Member Children, Families & Education speak with Headteachers to reinforce the importance of identifying and being considerate of the individual circumstances of young carers within their schools. The DCT should also engage with the Youth Forum, where this specific issue had been raised when considering items for scrutiny committee consideration. Recommendation 3:- Members commended the design and roll out of the ‘bite size’ training and recommended the training offer be extended to Governing bodies as part of the education provision. Recommendation 4:- Concerns were raised with regards to the wait times for Continuing Care funding decisions. Whilst members were reassured that support and services were provided at point of need and not held up during the decision-making process, it was recommended the Executive Member make representations to the relevant forum and partnership board to raise the importance of timeliness of decisions. Recommendation 5:- As a priority, the DCT should review the feedback from the parent/ child survey to identify why some parents had not approached the service until reaching crisis point. The committee stressed the importance of earlier intervention and support to prevent families from reaching crisis point. Recommendation 6:- With the confirmation that the take up of DFGs was fairly low, members were concerned at the timeline for adaptions and recommended the DCT liaise with the relevant team so ascertain the reasons for delay and to explore avenues to reduce the wait time. Recommendation 7:- The committee welcomed the confirmation that 2 social workers had been funded through the traineeship. In light of the demand for the scheme, members recommended the potential be explored for the funding of additional social worker traineeship spaces. 6.6 The Children & Families O&S Committee commended officers present and the wider team for the extensive work and efforts to deliver an effective and robust service provision for disabled children within the borough.

7.1 The Team Leader Scrutiny presented the report and invited members to review the information contained in the appendices to the report and agree an item for scrutiny at the next meeting. 7.2 The Committee agreed to scrutinise the Youth Offending Service.

8.1 The date of the next meeting was noted.