Agenda item

The Chair welcomed Josh MacAlister, Chair of the Independent Review of Childrens’ Social Care, to the meeting and invited him to present to the Board.

Josh outlined the work that had been taking place in the early stages of the review and said that whilst he wanted to take the time to carry out a broad piece of work that was able to examine some of the fundamental questions, there were also some urgent issues that needed addressing more quickly. The aim was therefore to complete the review within 12-15 months.

Josh reported that the fundamental question that the Review would seek to address had now been agreed: “How do we ensure children grow up in loving, stable and safe families and, where that is not possible, care provides the same foundations?”

The first 3 months of the review would be a problem analysis of the current system and the remainder would be forward looking to identify possible solutions. The underlying philosophy behind the Review would be to listen deeply to those who had received social care and to think boldly about how social care could be delivered more effectively in the future.

The Chair then invited members to comment on the Review and for Josh to respond in turn:

·       Early intervention, particularly by voluntary sector organisations, had in some instances been effective in slowing down the flow of young people entering the system. However, the 0-5 age group in particular was identified as a gap in provision. Josh said that early intervention would be a key part of the Review and that he would be looking for examples of where organisations had worked effectively with families.

·       The focus for social workers was generally on the child rather than the needs of the whole family. How could this be addressed? Josh said that this was a very complex area but would be addressed in the Review.

·       Would the review look at the needs of children and young people in custody and also those taken into care for their own safety? Josh said that these instances reflected a wider longer-term trend in this country of services not knowing how to effectively help teenagers and their families. This certainly needed to be looked at again.

·       Members considered that it was vital to involve the wider workforce in the Review as there were fundamental issues with pay, training, staff turnover and job recognition that impacted on the quality of service provision. Josh agreed that this was crucial and said that plans to involve professionals in the Review would be shared in the next couple of weeks.

·       Was the Troubled Families Programme within the scope of the Review? Josh confirmed that it was.

·       How would the Government’s commitment to expand family hubs tie in with the Review? The example of Bristol was given where family hubs had been very successful, and had proved to be a lifeline for some families during the pandemic. Josh said that there were key links here and he was working closely with the Government to ensure alignment.

·       Members were very supportive of including the word ‘love’ in the Review’s overarching question.

·       Proper funding of the system was considered to be vital in moving away from a crisis management approach. Josh agreed that funding was always important but that in order to convince the Treasury, the Review would need to provide hard evidence of the effectiveness of investment in early intervention.

·       Members felt that health services should be more involved in children’s social care, particularly in the 0-5 age group.

·       Community mentoring schemes were considered important for reaching BAME children and young people as they could be more reluctant to engage with statutory services.

·       The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) review into the market for children’s social care provision was welcomed.

·       The role of the family courts was considered to be very important. Josh confirmed that this was part of the Review and he had already started discussions with stakeholders.

·       The binary nature of either being in care or with the family was considered to be too simplistic. Finland was cited as an example of a country using a more nuanced approach. The Family Links programme was also praised for the good work it did. Josh agreed that it was vital to maintain family links as much as possible and said he was keen to explore this further.

·       Members felt that the practice of out of area placements needed to be examined as part of the review as children were often placed in unsuitable areas. Josh confirmed that this was definitely in scope and would also form part of the CMA review.

·       The Croydon Vulnerable Adolescent Review was highlighted as an important piece of work which should be taken into account.

·       How could the authorities work better with families who had a long-term involvement in the system? Josh said that agencies often needed to think and plan longer-term rather than addressing the symptoms of problems in the short-term.

·       The issue of transitioning into adulthood was raised and there was often a cliff-edge of support when young people reached 18. Josh said that extending the age range for CAMHS services to 25 was positive and could open up possibilities for other services to do similar.

·       Recruitment of quality foster carers was considered to be important and the transformative effect that they often had on life chances should be emphasised as a positive option for young people. Josh agreed that care could be a good option for young people but there were also concerning long-term negative health trends associated with separating children from their families.

·       Would the Review be learning from European and wider international good practice? Josh said that there were lots of differences in the systems across Europe and they were very keen to hear from members of any specific examples of good practice that they could look into.

·       The needs of different sized local authorities should be included as part of the Review. Josh agreed that implementation of any reforms would need to work for local authorities of all sizes.

The Chair thanked Josh for his time and for answering all the points raised by members. She raised the possibility of him returning to a future Board meeting as the Review progressed.

Decision:

Children & Young People Board noted the presentation.