Agenda item

This item is a presentation and provides an overview of Brent Children’s Social Care. The presentation highlights Children’s Social Care in the national context, regulations and current developments.

Neil MacDonald, Head of Children’s Commissioning, introduced the presentation and informed members that Graham Genoni, Operational Director Social Care, sent his apologies. Members were presented with an overview of Child social care. It was explained that Children’s services were governed by the Children Act 1989 and subsequent legislation in the Children Act 2004.

One of the main concerns for Children Social Care at the moment, due to its high public profile, was child exploitation and missing children. This had been brought to the public’s attention through a number of cases relating to children in residential care homes. It was explained that residential care homes were graded in the same way schools were by Ofsted, and Brent only used homes that had been graded as good or outstanding. Members were informed that Brent currently had 24 children in residential care. It was more expensive for the Council to have a child in residential care than it was to place them in a specialist fostering placement. Therefore the service was trying to work with children at a younger age so that they could avoid needing to place them in residential care. They were also working with families through the family intervention and support team to try and prevent family breakdowns. He explained that there were also having to undertake an increasing number of homelessness applications and that they were working closely with housing on these applications.

Neil MacDonald informed members that the Munro Review contained a number of recommendations for Children’s social services. The main focus of the review was to ensure that the child’s journey was placed back at the heart of social work. He outlined the different categories of children that the department had a statutory responsibility towards, including children with disabilities, care leavers and Children in Need. Members were informed that per 10,000 Brent’s figure was 48.5 which was lower than both Brent’s comparative neighbour, Newham, and the national average which was 59. In terms of the structure of Children’s Social Services in Brent, it was explained that there were 5 locality teams in the Borough, 4 looked after teams as well the Fostering and adoption teams and Contracts and Commissioning. The Contracts and Commissioning team accounted for £18m of the services £32m budget.

Neil MacDonald explained that in the last Ofsted expectation Brent were deemed to ‘need improvement’ which was the same as 60% of all Local Authorities. He added that it was believed that the next Ofsted inspection would be tougher. It was explained that the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board would also be inspected. Therefore it was very important that the service continued to improve. This included up skilling current social workers and reducing the length of time that an assessment takes before an outcome was determined for the child.

Members sought further clarification as to how the Children’s social services and the housing department worked closely together. They also queried why there was not much comparative information in the presentation; for example what was the caseload per social worker in Brent and the number of permanent social workers and how did these figures compare with other boroughs. Members also questioned what work the department were planning to do to ensure that they were improving and received a better grading from Ofsted. They also questioned what the threshold was for a child being removed from their family as there was still, sometimes, a negative perception of Social Services. The Committee concluded their questions by asking how the department supported children leaving care at 18 and how there were taking on the recommendations of the Munro report and putting the child at the heart of social work.

In response to the questions raised by the Committee, Neil MacDonald, explained that some families that were offered housing outside of the borough by the housing department attempted to gain a different offer of accommodation from social services due to having children in the borough. However social services worked with housing to ensure that they both come to the same offer of housing based on the families’ legal rights. Neil MacDonald stated that around 60% of the staff in children’s social service were permanent members of staff which was more than neighbouring borough Ealing. He added that he was aware that having a permanent workforce was key to improving the service which would in turn improve their Ofsted rating. He added that there was a determination in the service to drive through improvements.

In regards to families being fearful of disciplining their children, Neil MacDonald stated that he understood this was a perception of social services. However the reality was that there were fewer children in care and that the main aim of social services was to keep the child within their families.

The Committee were informed that under the Leaving Care Act 2000 the authority had a legal responsibility to provide support for young people leaving care. There was also an initiative called ‘staying put’ to help children stay in foster care placements after the age of 18. In regards to ensuring that the child’s views were at taken in to consideration, it was explained, that all cases were audited to make sure this was happening. They also sought the views of other young people and children via different groups and forums.

Members thanked Neil MacDonald and noted the presentation.