Agenda item

The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Report & Finding of Fault with Injustice is attached.

Officers spoke to the report and updated Members on the findings and recommendations following a complaint within Croydon Early Help and Children’s Social Care Services, which was passed to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This included another local authority Kent County Council which was also mentioned within the report.

Officers informed that following a referral that came to Children’s Social Care in June 2018, the response from Croydon had not met practice standards and was not child focused. The LGSCO was concerned of the cross boundary issues, where the young person resided in one local authority and the alleged perpetrator(s) resided in another local authority. The findings stated that Croydon did not carry a strategy discussion, pulling key professionals and protective agencies (such as police, health, schools) together to agree a plan, actions and timescales in carrying out different tasks.

In Croydon, this did not happen and the strategy meeting did not take place and thus there was no coordinated approach from Croydon and the other local authority to fulfil clear roles and responsibilities.

The LGSCO recommendations was to carry out an audit of fifty similar cases where there were cross boundary issues, to ensure that correct procedures were adhered to,  putting the young person at the centre of all decision making, and that they were right and proper.

The review and findings needed to be reported back to the LGSCO upon completion; further, with similar practice found, a wider audit was to be conducted. Officers concluded that senior officers were conducting the review which was to take place in February. Findings from the audit was to return to GPAC, the Safeguarding Partnership and the Improvement Board.

Cllr Flemming arrived at the meeting at 8:14pm.

Members raised questions in relation to the learning of audits and professional curiosity. Officers advised that there was a bi-monthly programme of audits and twice yearly practice week session of audits that reviewed work across Children’s Social Care and Early Help. In the last year the proportion was made up of senior managers, which was very good, with a small proportion that required improvement, and one that was inadequate though it did not identify with the same issues that the LGSCO reported. This instance was therefore noted as an exception rather than a general matter of concern; though much learning was to be taken from this, and officers added that across the service this was not indicative of wider issues around poor practice and lack of professional curiosity. Further, officers highlighted that the service proposed to conduct through the multi-agency lens, a similar audit of activity at the front door service, with police and health partners, who would also be involved at strategy meetings.

Questions were raised by Members whether the Committee would be able to have sight and monitor the findings of the case going forward and officers responded informing that the findings of the audit would allow the Continuous Improvement Board chaired by external multi-agency, which will get over sight in scrutiny, though a summary could also be reported to this Committee.

Members had commented in relation to the organisation of the audit and queried that in identifying similar cases over a period of three to four years, would officers be able to identify the fifty cases and how would they be chosen. Further questions were asked about how senior managers were chosen to audit and whether it was good practice for external regulators and other local authority to review. Officers responded to the questions advising that colleagues in performance would be able to interrogate the data held across Children’s Services to gather the key issues within the named case. This included looking for types of presenting needs for the young person and the cross-border issue. Should the team be unable to collate fifty cases, they would look for similar cases.

With regards to the senior management, officers enlightened that it was general practice for senior management in Children’s Social Care to undertake audits of the work within their organisation for reasons such as technical knowledge required in particular procedures. Senior management was said to be very experienced in being very critical of their own work following regular external regulators such as Ofsted Inspectors who would scrutinise their work. Senior management would be pulled from across the service and would sit independently. Members heard that external regulators would review the audits upon their request, where they would be required to review the recent and current audits undertaken. The service continued to use their improvement partner Camden as another local authority to peer review and peer audit work, though this was not a requirement from the LGSCO recommendation and auditing in this case would not be shared with Camden for scrutiny; Camden was the Department for Education partner in practice.

Members made comment in relation to the human resource impact, noting that there was no impact and queried whether there was a process that had not been followed correctly and whether there should be reference to training or cultural change as part of the human resource impact. Officers informed that this was to be included within the human resources recommendations, and clarified that the outcome of the audits would move into the internal Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Cycle, and that the front door service would receive a specific wider learning for practitioners and management development. Supplementary comments were made regarding the massive amount of improvement within the Children’s Social Service and the service was congratulated for their hard work.

Further comments echoed the failings in working with other departments and with other councils, and Members queried whether there was any council wide learning particularly from the transformation of Children’s Social Care that could be applied to other areas of the council. Officers informed that they worked very hard in Children’s Social Care to work much closer with families and this was conducted by auditing and working directly with the families for families to learn what working in the service would be like, and feed back to service delivery. This was important, as hearing the voices of the families and the voices of the young person in the work that was conducted helped to show compassion and thoughtfulness to vulnerable families in a way that made a difference to how they would experience the service, and this was a great stance to be in.

In addition, the Chair noted from the report, that it was disappointing that all councils involved in the named case that had been invited to attend the strategy meetings were not in attendance. Officers informed that within Children’s Social Care partner agencies or other local authorities often receive short notice meetings with stretched resource for staff to attend. Croydon Children’s Service though do try their very best to ensure they attend other agency meetings. The Chair concluded that having the LGSCO involved, though there was an understanding, in the circumstances it was not an acceptable response given the importance of strategy meetings with sufficient notice provided (even up to an hour) a representative should be present; and with the seriousness of the case it was poor that no representative was present to ensure the family’s best interest.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Learning added that in reflection, there was more work that needed to be done with other local authorities to ensure all services were active in all stages of the process; one of the learnings from the Ofsted journey was the way in which partner agencies worked together, and thus at any given stage should all partner agencies not be engaged from the outset then the outcome for the young person would not be the best it could be, which was one of the reflections and learnings in this situation.

Members commented on points within the report relating to a response to the ombudsman, and highlighted that the pressure to stay ‘good’ could create blind spots and queried on the culture element on the ‘good’ journey. Officers responded that the response to the ombudsman comment was raw and that the particular example was indicative of a systemic issue across Children’s Social Care. The Service’s improvement would have made this more of an exception than an indication of a systemic issue, and this was evidenced by the audit programme, the increased management oversight, which was reflected in the Ofsted Inspection, and increased scrutiny from senior management of their practice in the service. The Service was continuously improving their service and this was also highlighted by the Improvement Board who reviewed practice monthly and challenged rigorously. Officers were proud of what the service had achieved.

The Chair thanked the officers and Cabinet Member to speak to the report and responding to questions.

The Committee RESOLVED to note the recommendations:

1.1      The Committee is asked to note the recommendations made by the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) in relation to Croydon Council in a public interest report dated 26  November 2021 as follows:- 

§   Share the learning points from this case across its organisation, to ensure staff are aware of their responsibilities in respect of information sharing, professional curiosity, and cross border child protection referrals; and

§   Conduct an audit of 50 cases closed in similar circumstances between 2018 to date. If more than 25% of those cases identify similar issues the Council should make resources available to conduct a full case audit. The full audit should review all cases closed in similar circumstances between 2018 to date.

§   Within three months the Council should confirm the actions they have taken or propose to take. The Council should consider the report at a full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this.

1.2    The Committee is further asked to agree the progress and time line to implement the recommendations as per section 7 below.