Agenda item

The Service and Cabinet Member will set out their priorities for 2015/16.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director, Children, Schools and Families

Julie Fisher, Interim Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families

Peter Martin, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Lead for Economic Prosperity

Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement

Sheila Jones, Head of Countywide Services, Children’s Services and Safeguarding.

Key points raised during the discussions:

The presentation that was delivered on this item is submitted as Annex 3 to these minutes.

The Deputy Director of Children, Schools and Families (DDCSF) gave the Board an overview of Children’s Services. The Board was apprised of the number of referrals that the Service assesses. Information was also provided on the number of children who were Looked After in Surrey.

Attention was also drawn to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). The MASH was being reconfiguration to facilitate closer working with partners across the county. It was suggested that the Board could have an update on this reconfiguration in 6-9 months time once these changes were completed. The Board requested details on how the changes arising from the introduction of the Care Act have impacted on young carers in Surrey. The DDSCF advised that information about how young carers would be affected by Care Act would be circulated to the Board.

The DDSCF was asked to clarify the steps being taken to ensure that children moved into residential care are given placements close to their friends and family. Officers commented that residential placements are always based around the needs of the child and that proximity to family and friends was given careful consideration. The Board was informed that there were a limited number of residential placements available within the county and this meant that it was sometimes necessary to place children out of county. It was highlighted that in such circumstances Children’s Services took steps to ensure that the child maintained appropriate contact with their family.

·         The Board queried whether the number of children being placed in foster care in the county is increasing. Officers informed the Board that the number of children in foster care had remained relatively stable over the past few years, although it was highlighted that work was being done to significantly increase the number of foster carers in Surrey.

·         It was commented that the information provided to the Board made it challenging for Members to get a comprehensive understanding of key elements of the Service, such as expenditure and volume of cases. Officers highlighted that some of the statistics in relation to caseloads were fluid and changed over time. It was suggested that a breakdown of Children’s Service’s budget was circulated to the Board.

·         Clarification was sought on the number of in-county residential placements for children who were Looked After children. The Head of Countywide Services stated that the Council has around 40 residential placements with a further 44 external ones currently.   External placements are spot-purchased according to need.  Members were informed that there was a team dedicated to ensuring that children were placed in the right environment and that children were only put in residential settings rated good or outstanding by Ofsted.

·         The Board asked about the number of children that were going through the adoption process in Surrey and whether the speed of the adoption process compares favourably with other local authorities. The Board was informed that around 50 children were subject to a placement order in the county at that time, and that  they were at various stages in the adoption process. Foster to adopt had been a particularly successful scheme and had led to a number of adoptions. In regard to the speed of the adoption process, the Head of Countywide Services advised that Surrey generally comes out well when compared with other local authorities and when assessed against government guidelines. 

·         Members asked if there was a general move away from fostering nationally in place of putting children in residential placements. Officers indicated that the fostering process remained an integral part of placing Looked After children and that a family setting was still seen as extremely important. It was advised, however, that foster care was not suitable for every child and in some instances it was more effective for a young person to be placed in a residential home.  It was highlighted that many local authorities have been expanding their estates to ensure that they now have residential homes in an effort to reduce risk and retain children’s engagement with their local services and communities.   

RECOMMENDATIONS:

            None

ACTIONS/ FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED:

1.    The Social Care Services Board will consider an item on changes made to the MASH at a future meeting.

2.    The Board to be provided with information on how the introduction of the Care Act has impacted on young carers in Surrey.

3.    Children’s Services to produce a briefing note for circulation alongside the minutes which provide precise information on the number of cases that Children’s Services deals with as well as its annual budget.

BOARD NEXT STEPS:

None