Agenda and minutes
PDF 381 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Andy Spragg or Richard Plummer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Ramon Gray, Ken Gulati, Adrian Page and Dorothy Ross-Tomlin. Bill Chapman substituted for Adrian Page and Bob Gardner substituted for Ken Gulati.
Apologies were also received from Linda Kemeny and Mel Few. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 23 JUNE 2016
To agree the minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Minutes: There were no declarations of interest made. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (29 August 2016). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (26 August 2016) 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions received. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
There are no responses to report. Minutes: Witnesses:
Key points raised in the discussion:
|
|
|
STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN'S, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES VERBAL UPDATE
Purpose of the report: Minutes: Witnesses: Key
points raised during the discussion:
1.
The Strategic Director for Children, Schools and
Families outlined the plan for continuous improvement within the
service. The efforts undertaken since summer 2015 with regard to
creating a stable leadership team, improving work with partners and
the Safer Surrey practice guidelines were all highlighted as
particularly successful.
2.
It was noted that the Department for Education (DfE)
review of July 2016 confirmed the improvement of the service with
regard to its Improvement Plan. The service reported that its
progress had met internal expectations, but that an Ofsted comment
noted that improvement needed to be initiated with greater speed
across the service. However, Ofsted also noted that staff morale
was at a high level and that the service had taken the correct
initial steps. It was noted that a full report was due to be
published autumn 2016.
3.
It was noted that a refreshed Improvement Plan with
a focus on improving practice was due to be formulated in September
2016. Bob Gardner entered the meeting at
10.45am
4.
Officers highlighted that the service was in the
process of creating a quality assurance record which was due to be
delivered to the Improvement Board on 29 September 2016.
5.
It was explained by officers that there was an
improvement in practice within the service, but that its
implementation was inconsistent. The Strategic Director for
Children, Schools and Families did, however, note that in areas
where the Safer Surrey practice guidelines were being utilised,
instances of good practice had increased significantly and that
parent and child understanding of the service aims and
responsibilities had improved. It was emphasised that the Safer
Surrey practice guidelines were being implemented across the
service.
6.
Members highlighted their concerns regarding the
high level of caseloads for social workers within the
service. The Strategic Director for
Children, Schools and Families pointed out that the service
response of recruiting a team of temporary specialist assessors
with a focus on completing new assessments was a positive step
towards easing this issue.
7.
It was noted that the long term solution to issues
regarding high caseloads would be resolved by: the establishment of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding
Hub (MASH) in October 2016, the revision of thresholds guidance and
review the Early Help strategy.
8.
Members queried the procedures in place for young
people leaving the system and whether the current “step
up” and “step down” procedures were sufficiently
robust. It was noted that the Ofsted judgement of the procedures
was positive and that the service had addressed the previous
concern that children were being “Stepped Down” without
being signposted on to further support. 9. Members suggested that the service engage with other partners to work with to improve service quality. Officers noted that the service was working to scope all possible partners and would welcome suggestions and connections ... view the full minutes text for item 57/16 |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Board is asked to review its Recommendation Tracker and Forward Work Programme providing comment as necessary. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: This item was moved forward at the Chairman’s request
1. The Board noted and approved the recommendations tracker and forward work programme.
2. The Board also received an update from the Performance and Finance Group. It was highlighted that the Chairman of the Board would like to arrange a meeting with the new Head of Children’s Services, to ascertain future plans. The Board expressed the wish that the positive changes implemented by the Interim Head of Children’s Services be continued.
3. The Board also expressed concerns regarding social worker caseloads.
4. It was noted that the formulation of the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector Task Group would be raised at the next meeting of the Council Overview Board of the 21 September 2016 for approval. Recommendations: |
|
|
CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION SAFEGUARDING REPORT
Purpose of the report: To provide the Social Care Services Board with an update of the work being carried out by Children Schools and Families (CSF) and together with partners to tackle Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in Surrey.
Minutes: Witnesses: Linda Cunningham, Deputy Designated Nurse Child Protection, Guildford and Waverley CCG Claire Curran, Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing Ben Byrne, Head of Early
Help Mary Lewis,
Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families Key
points raised during the discussion:
1.
Officers highlighted the distinction between Child
Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and Child Abuse and the challenges that
arise with regard to the age of consent. It was noted that all
young people under the age of 18 within the service would be
classified as “children,” constructing a robust
response from the service with regard to those experiencing
exploitation within that age group. Members highlighted this
definition, noting that the difference must be clear between a
healthy relationship and an exploitative one. Officers responded
that the service and Surrey Police look closely at individual cases
and act accordingly to determine whether the child is being
exploited.
2.
The Board queried the structure of the Multi-Agency
approach, questioning the number of Surrey Police and Surrey County
Council specialist staff available to work with cases of CSE. The
representative of Surrey Police responded that there were
approximately 190 officers spread across several specialist teams,
including a unit for online investigations and other CSE related
teams. Surrey County Council officers noted that there were
approximately 400 dedicated social workers across the four areas
and 140 Youth Support service workers who would have a role in
identifying and working with victims of CSE. It was also noted that
Surrey County Council was also working closely with District and
Borough Councils.
3.
The Board expressed concerns regarding the high
number of Looked After Children (LAC) at risk. It was pointed out
that approximately 20% of those considered at risk of CSE
were LAC. The Board
queried what Surrey County Council was doing to reduce this risk.
The Cabinet Member for Children and
Families Wellbeing responded that the wellbeing of LACs at risk of
CSE was a standing item for the Corporate Parenting Board. It was
also noted that Cabinet Members regularly meet with the Interim
Head of Children’s Services to be updated on any issues
arising.
4.
Members questioned how information
regarding spotting CSE early warning signs was distributed amongst
the service. Officers responded that the service was improving
awareness, citing presentations on the issue of CSE awareness being
undertaken and the work being done in partnership with District and
Borough authorities and with Surrey Police to raise awareness. It
was noted that Surrey County Council was investigating the
possibility of working closer with the Metropolitan Police and
their work with “Operation Makesafe,” an awareness
raising campaign involving the community. Officers noted that more
work could be undertaken with voluntary and faith sectors and that
these avenues would be explored. 5. The representative ... view the full minutes text for item 59/16 |
|
|
SURREY SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN'S BOARD VERBAL UPDATE
Purpose of the report: Minutes: Witnesses: Elaine Coleridge Smith, Surrey
Safeguarding Children’s Board Independent Chair Mary Lewis,
Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families Key
points raised during the discussion: 1. The Independent Chair of the Surrey Safeguarding Children’s Board (SSCB) advised the Board that the SSCB was in the process of analysing a number of audit reports to ascertain how processes with partners are performing.
2. The Independent Chair noted that the Neglect Oversight Group found problems within Surrey with regard to neglect of children within Surrey and planned to create a toolkit to respond to this issue.
3.
The Independent Chair highlighted that the
Board’s input with the SSCB was welcomed, and invited members
to the Multi-Agency Conference to look at hidden aspects of CSE in
November 2016.
4.
The Independent Chair explained to the Board that
the SSCB had implemented information sharing protocols with police
and school partners to improve practice.
5.
Members raised a concern with regard to academies
and private schools, querying whether these institutions were
forthcoming with information to the SSCB. The Independent Chair
noted that more work was being done with independent schools,
however, it was noted that there were no independent school members
or faith schools members on the SSCB. The Independent Chair wished
to expand membership to these groups in future. The Cabinet Member
for Children and Families Wellbeing noted that links between these
groups did exist within the Surrey County Council Safeguarding
group, and that independent schools were not
un-represented. 6. The Board thanks the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board Chair for her update. It notes the work of the Safeguarding Children Board, and looks forward to receiving the annual report in December 2016.
Recommendations: 1. That officers provide a short update on efforts to engaging fathers to attend child protection case conferences for information.
2.
That the Safeguarding Board provide a short update
accompanying the annual report in December on: a.
Outcomes from the November 2016 multi-agency CSE
conference. b. The work of Surrey County Council and the Safeguarding Board in engaging with independent and faith schools.
|
|
|
FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION TASK AND FINISH GROUP
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
This report provides an update to the “Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015” report presented to the Social Care Services Board on 7 September 2015. The purpose of this report is to feedback to the SCSB on the work being done by the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Task and Finish Group and its partners.
Minutes: Witnesses: Key
points raised during the discussion:
1.
Officers noted that the Female Genital Mutilation
(FGM) Task and Finish Group was led by Public Health to ensure that
an appropriate response was in place to counter the threat of FGM
within Surrey.
2.
It was noted that Surrey County Council was adopting
the Manchester FGM Protocol with regard to combating and raising
awareness of FGM within Surrey. It was questioned whether the
service could provide a response to any progress made with the
implementation of the Manchester model within a 12 month
period.
3.
It was highlighted that the service was working
closely with the Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum as part of the wider
engagement with the community regarding FGM.
4.
It was queried how the subject of FGM was broached
in primary schools and if behavioural change was monitored at the
critical ages of 10-11. Officers responded that the primary phase
was a key point to engage with children and families on the subject
of FGM and that awareness raising campaigns were being undertaken
in schools in the primary and secondary phase. However, it was also
noted that some work could be done and that the service would
analyse the teacher training programmes in primary and secondary
phase with regard to FGM awareness.
5.
Officers explained to the Board that the Task Group
was looking into extending its remit to include the issues of
Honour Killing and Forced Marriages and that a further update would
be provided to the Board. It was noted that this was an area looked
at by the SSCB.
6.
Members queried what penalties were in place for
perpetrators of FGM and what Surrey County Council could do to
support this. Officers responded that a strong penalty would be
applied under current law and that the service also had a robust
policy with regard to FGM prevention. Julian
Gordon-Walker left the meeting at 12.42pm Recommendations:
1. That officers clarify the legal framework and action taken by Surrey Police if an offence was to occur
|
|
|
EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SURREY'S PRISON SOCIAL CARE SERVICE IN YEAR ONE
Purpose of the Report:
This report provides an overview of the implementation and progress of Surrey County Council’s Prison Social Care Service in year one which was introduced under the Care Act (2014). It will provide a briefing on the current position of social care provision in Surrey prisons and explores considerations and impacts of proposed future working arrangements for the service. Minutes: Witnesses:
1.
Officers highlighted the necessity for equal access
to adult social care services for those within the prison system in
Surrey. It was brought to the attention of the Board that the
Association of Directors of Adult Social Care Services Survey
(September 2015) had noted high activity and referrals. It was
highlighted that the reviews into prison services social care
services pointed out that positive progress had been made within
the service in year one.
2.
Officers explained that the early issue faced by the
service of social care provision was explored by the service and
resolved with the employment of Support Time and Recovery
Workers. Officers assured the Board
that other avenues of approach were considered and that this was
the option that provided best service.
3.
It was brought to the Board’s attention that
the service was engaging with peer support programmes, an
initiative that was being promoted nationally. It was added that
good systems of peer support were in place within two prisons and
that the programme was being implemented within the other prisons
in Surrey.
4.
It was highlighted that there had been made, as of
September 2016, 49
self-referrals by prison residents, which was noted
as a significant increase.
5.
The Independent Chair of the SSCB queried what
provisions were in place for LACs and mother and baby support
within the prison service. Officers gave the commitment to engage
with the Independent Chair of the SSCB to ensure these groups are
well supported.
6.
The Board requested information regarding the
support given to prisoners whom were the subject of domestic abuse.
Officers responded that the service was looking at methods of
supporting those who had suffered domestic abuse.
7.
There was a query from members relating to the
number of referrals made in prisons over year one. It was explained
by officers that there were 222 total referrals made and that these
were broken down individually in the report.
8.
It was questioned by the Board as to what the future
plans were for the service with regard to prison social care.
Future care was highlighted as a key area of improvement within the
service. It was also highlighted that prisoners whom provided
non-invasive care support to other prisoners would work towards
earning a Social Care Certificate Recommendations:
1.
That officers engage with the Surrey Safeguarding
Children’s Board to ensure that those identified as Looked
After, or in mother and baby units, are supported. 2. That a future update is brought about the progress of the peer support programmes.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next public meeting of the Board will be held at County Hall on Wednesday 26 October 2016 at 10.00am.
Minutes: The next public meeting of the Board will be held at County Hall on Wednesday 26 October 2016 at 10.00am. |