Agenda item

Purpose: To report upon the performance of services for children and young people subject to a child protection plan between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025, providing breakdown and commentary regarding the quality of practice within West Berkshire’s child protection conference process and to make recommendations for any required remedial action.

Nicola Robertson (Service Manager – Quality Assurance and Safeguarding) presented the Child Protection Annual Report 2024-25 (Agenda Item 8).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       It was not known why West Berkshire had a higher number of children on protection plans than the national average. There had been an upward trend since the Covid pandemic. Cases were more complex and there were more issues around financial hardship, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, which often accompanied issues around neglect and physical harm. Discussions with other local authorities in the South East suggested that similar trends had been observed elsewhere. It was noted that national statistics lagged behind local reporting.

·       Members asked if schools were employing officers to get absent pupils back into school. It was confirmed that attendance was highly scrutinised, involving multi-agency child protection conferences. Schools had pastoral support workers and designated safeguarding leads, and headteachers and tutors attended child protection conferences.

·       There was discussion around the approach to preventing and tackling domestic abuse, and the links to mental health. Officers stated that frontline staff followed the family safeguarding model. Domestic abuse workers and adult mental health staff were co-located within these teams. Social workers sought to work with families to break the cycle of domestic abuse. In some cases, levels were insufficient to go through the courts, and people could not be made to engage. Often, perpetrators did not have sufficient insight to accept that they exhibited that behaviour, which could lead to repeating patterns. Women were encouraged to use Clare’s Law to check their partner’s history, but some chose not to. In some cases, women were being convinced that they were to blame. It was noted that children growing up in homes where domestic abuse was present may believe that such relationships were normal.

·       Members asked why 80% of repeat child protection plans were considered unavoidable and what more could be done. Officers indicated that there were only 10 families where repeat plans were applied. The challenge was where the non-abusive partner formed a new relationship with a new abuser. Officers confirmed that cases remained open for 3 months after a child protection plan was closed, and contact was phased down in this period. Decisions to close were evidence based and were taken when professionals had done all they could for the family. They made sure that families knew where to go for support if they needed it. Officers were considering how they could work in different ways with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse.

·       Concern was expressed about staff welfare and whether additional support was needed. It was confirmed that all staff had daily contact and monthly supervision with their manager. There was a good staff support system available, and staff could access counselling and confidential support. It was recognised that conferences could be emotional, so debrief sessions were held with staff afterwards. It was suggested that additional business support staff would be helpful due the rising caseload.

Action: CYPSC Chairman to ask the Lead Member for Children and Family Services to look at business support resources in Children’s Services to see if there is a need that is not being met.

·       Recruitment and retention were discussed. It was acknowledged that the work could be traumatising, which naturally led to churn in social work staff. It was difficult to attract staff due to competition with neighbouring authorities, who were offering attractive packages. However, work had been done recently around recruitment and retention, which had led to the proportion of agency staff reducing from 32% to 11% in the last year. The remainder were mostly covering sickness and maternity leave. In future, the aim was to have a greater focus on staff retention and wellbeing.

·       Members highlighted issues around parental mental health and asked about the role of health visitors. It was confirmed that social workers worked closely with health visitors who had great insight and understanding of their patients. They attended conferences and went the extra mile to support families. However, they had significant challenges due to large caseloads. Previously, health visitors and social workers would have made joint visits, but opportunities to provide in-person support had reduced, and increasingly checks were made over the phone/online, or required the parent to attend a clinic. It was recognised that if parents had poor mental health, they may not attend. Officers felt that changes in health visitors’ working practices had been felt most keenly in relation preventative work and early help.

·       There was discussion about the use of advocates in child protection conferences and how the data had been presented. It was explained that for complaints, children had a right to an advocate, and one must be provided. West Berkshire Council went a step further by facilitating independent advocacy for any child who might benefit from this.  The National Youth Advisory Service was commissioned to provide 300 advocacy contacts per year. This had recently been increased. Officers undertook to review the table to make the headings clearer and to include data about how many times an advocate had been present. It was noted that Child Protection Chairs ensured that the voice of the child was heard in all conferences. Even when a formal advocate was not present, the child would have been supported to speak to a trusted adult.

Action: Officers to review the table on child advocacy.

·       Members asked how parents’ views on conferences were captured. Child protection chairs held pre-meetings with families and asked them about their experiences. The report highlighted cases where negative feedback had been received and changes introduced in response. Also, social workers regularly checked in with families throughout the process. There were plans to give families more of a voice by using family decision meetings, where they would be supported to come up with their own plans to be fed into the conferences. Such plans were logged within the Children’s Services system.

RESOLVED to note the report.