Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services which provided an overview of the Child Protection Process in County Durham and the Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice gave a detailed presentation (for copies see file of minutes).

The Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Profesional Practice advised members of the need for timely discussions when there were suspicions of a child suffering.  Initial Child Protection Conferences (ICPCs) were held with 15 days and DCC were  above the national average in the timeframe.  This was a multi-agency conference that was chaired by an Independent reviewing Officer.

Members were provided with statistical information regarding DCC’s performance in a number of areas in comparison with statistical neighbours and national figures.  This statistical information related to the number of section 47 enquiries; ICPCs held within the year and ICPCs held within 15 days of a strategy discussion.  Information was also provided in relation to Child Protection Plans (CPPs) reviewed in timescale and the number of CPPs open.

The Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice provided the committee with information with regard to child protection plans by category which indicated that neglect was by far the most common primary reason for a CPP and was ahead of statistical neighbours in this category too.

The Chair thanked the Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice for his presentation.

Councillor Walton asked whether children on a Child Protection Plan (CPP) stayed with their own families or elsewhere and if they were monitored when the CPP had ended.

The Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice advised that the vast majority of children on a CPP were with families and there may be a very small number living with an extended family member and there may be a plan to support the families.  If a child was in care, they would not require a CPP as this action removed the risk and created a level of safety.

When a young person was no longer subject to a CPP, there would be a period of support which would be monitored with a Child in Need Plan which would include a social worker would be involved to work with the family.  Once the needs had been reduced, they would be then supported by One Point, with offer a lower level of advice and support.  The ultimate aim was that the family would be able to sustain the changes made under the plan.

Councillor Coult referred to the reasons outlined in the report for CPP’s in place and asked what the Council could do to improve the area around neglect and although there was local comparison data, she would be interested to know what the situation was nationally.  In addition, she asked what the Council could to do to reduce the figures for open CPP’s and the percentage open for one year but less than two years. 

The Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice advised that in terms of neglect, there were often multiple factors involved, however only the primary factor was recorded.  He explained that there was subjective judgment involved in categorising cases and the service needed to explore this, as although there was a problem with Neglect and there was a Strategy to deal with this, the way in which cases were categorised could explain some of the difference between Durham and other Local Authorities.

In terms of what more the service could do to combat neglect, he was unable to go into any detail on the Neglect Strategy, however the Strategic Manager of One Point and Think Family Services would be able to provide further information.

With regards to reducing the length of time a child was subject to a CPP, the Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice advised that it was difficult to suggest any particular action that that could be taken to reduce the time a child was subject to a CPP as it was dependent on the level of concern, however the Council were in line with the national average.  The child needed to be on a CPP for a period of time to effect sustainable change and the quality of the social worker and relationship building were factors in the success of a plan but the reasons children came to harm were multifaceted.

Councillor Martin advised that the data alluded to an issue in 2017-2018 where performance was not quite as good and then there was a steady improvement and he queried the reasons behind this and what improvement had been made.  The Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice advised that in 2016 the Council had received an Ofsted inspection rating of required improvement  and there were multiple actions taken to continue to improve on that rating.  One of the key areas of the Ofsted framework was to know where strengths and weaknesses were and the service now had a good audit process and combining good practice with this knowledge improved the overall picture of practice, which had been reflected in the more recent inspections. 

The Chair queried whether there was a particular reason for less than half of the number of section 47 enquiries leading to a Child Protection Conference.  The Strategic Manager of Safeguarding and Professional Practice advised that at the point of the initial strategy discussion very little was known in relation to assessment work with the family and there were 15 crucial days of investigation that could lead to reassurance that the level of risk indicated at the point of the initial strategy meeting was not needed.  There may still be a level of support and intervention, such as a Child in Need Plan but it may be that the case did not meet the threshold for a CPP.

Resolved

That the report and presentation be noted.