Agenda item

The Principal Social Worker will be in attendance to provide the Panel with a briefing in relation to the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care.

S Davies, Principal Social Worker, was in attendance at the meeting to provide the Panel with an overview in relation to the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care.

 

The Panel was informed that the Government’s manifesto had committed to review the children’s social care system to ensure that children and young people got the support they needed.  The review would also consider how the care system responded to all children referred in to it and would address major challenges including:-

 

·        the sharp increase in recent years in the number of children becoming looked after

·        high and rising unit costs

·        inconsistencies in children’s social care practice and outcomes across the country

·        the failure of the system to provide stable, loving homes for children

·        the capacity and capability of the system to support and strengthen families to prevent children being taken into care unnecessarily.

 

The review was launched in January 2021 and was being independently led by Josh MacAlister, a former school teacher and founder of the Social Work Charity Frontline.

 

The scope of the review was as follows:-

 

·        Starting from children’s experiences – looking at how service provision influenced a child’s experience and outcomes.  It would prioritise listening to the voices of children, young people and adults that had received help or support from a Social Worker, or who had been looked after.

 

·        All children who were referred to, or involved with, statutory social care – a whole system review, including relevant preventative services such as Early Help.

 

·        All children in care in both formal and informal (kinship) placements – it may also consider those leaving or preparing to leave care, adoption and SEND review.

 

·        Children’s social care and interaction with partner agencies – it would review and investigate how those services’ roles, responsibilities and accountabilities interacted with Children’s Social Care and recommend improvements for working together.

 

It was highlighted that the review must be workable and lead to deliverable reforms that were evidence-based and demonstrated a measurable impact.

 

The Panel was informed that the review would focus on the following themes and questions:-

 

·        Support - What support was needed to meet the needs of children who were referred to or involved with social care, in order to improve outcomes and make a long-term positive difference to individuals and to society?

 

·        Strengthening families - What could be done so children were supported to stay safely and thrive with their families, to ensure the exceptional powers that were granted to the state to support and intervene in families were consistently used responsibly, balancing the need to protect children with the right to family life, avoiding the need to enter care?

 

·        Safety - What could be done so children who needed to be in care got there quickly, and to ensure those children felt safe and were not at risk of significant harm?

 

·        Care - What was needed for children to have a positive experience of care that prioritised stability, providing an alternative long-term family for children who needed it and support for others to return home safely?

 

·        Delivery - What were the key enablers to implement the review and raise standards across England, such as a strong, stable and resilient workforce, system leadership and partnerships, and what was needed so that this change could be delivered?

 

·        Sustainability - What was the most sustainable and cost-effective way of delivering services, including high-cost services, who was best placed to deliver them, and how could this be improved so that they were fit for the future?

 

·        Accountability - What accountability arrangements were necessary to ensure that the state could act appropriately, balancing the need to protect and promote the welfare of children with the importance of parental responsibility, and what was needed to ensure proper oversight of how local areas discharged those responsibilities consistently?

 

The over-arching question that the review aimed to cover was “How we can ensure that children grow up in loving, safe and stable families and, where that was not possible, that care provides the same foundations.”

 

There were various ways in which to become involved in the review, including:-

 

·        Call for Advice – Individuals were above to contact the Lead Reviewer with advice and more than 750 responses had been received to date.  There was a commitment for every submission to be read and considered as to how it could shape the review.

 

·        Call for Evidence – primarily aimed at the research community and those with robust evidence that should be considered by the review panel.  The call for evidence would consider what was already known about how well the current care system provided love, stability and safety for young people.  There had been 200 responses to date.

 

·        From Middlesbrough’s point of view, Middlesbrough Council staff could submit their own responses or collective responses.

 

The review was still in the early stages and groups were still being established to consider how the review should be conducted.  This included:-

 

·        Experience by Experts Board – meeting regularly.  Two advisory groups consisting of care experienced young people, children’s social care professionals, politicians and researchers would feed advice into the Board.

 

·        Evidence Group – made up of academics and experts in the field would support and advise on the evidence being collected.  The ‘What Works Centre’ would support the review by producing and commissioning evidence summaries, rapid reviews and new analysis.

 

·        Design Group – multi-agency group involving a range of professionals across local government, policing, the judiciary, health, education and other areas.

 

The groups would make recommendations that would contribute towards the case for change in early Summer.

 

The Panel was advised that people could be kept up to date with the review, including events that would be taking place throughout the year, such as webinars giving the opportunity to hear from experts by experience panel members, progress updates from the independent review chair and there was also the chance to sign up to receive email updates.  Members were advised that links to the events and email sign up were included in the presentation which had been circulated to the Panel by email.

 

During the course of discussion, the following issues were raised:-

 

·        Reference was made to the 750 responses to Calls for Advice and it was queried whether they had been submitted by members of the public or professionals.  The Principal Social Worker explained that the responses had been submitted from a range of sources, including individuals and professionals.  A breakdown of the responses showed that the majority were submitted by Children’s Social Care workers, those with personal experience, carers, charities, education, researchers, health care workers.

 

·        It was queried whether there was a specific impetus for this piece of work taking place.  It was explained that the review had been agreed as it was part of the Government’s manifesto and it had been referred to as a ‘once in a generation review’.  The original scope of the review was to focus in on some of the inconsistencies in practice across the country and also to try to gain a better understanding of the increased in the numbers of children becoming looked after.  It was a wholly independent review with and independent chair and there were no preconceived ideas about what the outcomes would be.  It was open to consultation with a wide range of people that would be effected by the review.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Social Worker for attending and for the information provided.

 

AGREED that the information provided be noted.