CYP(3) PCC 01
Children and Young People Committee
Inquiry into Arrengements for the placement of Children into care in Wales
Response from Children Services Blaunau Gwent
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the inquiry on the placement of children into care in Wales. The responses detailed below reflect a personal view based on some years experience in working within Children’s services. I am a Service Manager in a small unitary authority in South Wales, and have been in the field of social care for 33 years.
Children’s services use the Core Assessment as the tool for ensuring information is gathered from all agencies and as important, from the family. Systems are in place but the effectiveness is dependant on the skill and knowledge of practitioners. Practice will be variable. Most Authorities have systems in place to ensure the information is robust and the decision making is made in a safe environment that is open to scrutiny by other Agencies and by senior and experienced managers. In this Authority, there is a multi-agency Panel outside the Child Protection forum that considers whether thresholds have been met for accommodating a child. If the decision is taken to go into proceedings (following the PLO), there are threshold and legal meetings chaired by a Service Manager. The delegated responsibility for making the decision about this therefore rests with a Service Manager.
It is therefore my view that there are sufficient processes already in place but there will always be the issue around practitioners information, analysis and judgements.
CSSR will only be effective if it is kept up to date by both Providers and by Local Authorities. This raises capacity issues. It is seen by many as ineffective as presently the time spent on locating placements only to find they are not available or do not match the child’s needs mitigate against practitioners feeling there is any value in engaging with this process.
To be better utilised, the under capacity issues would need to be addressed. This cannot be solely relied on the Local Authorities and Providers, who are trying to make resources fit an increasingly regulated sector.
Some of the processes developing through the SEWIC initiative should assist. However foster parents need the history as well as risk assessments, chronologies and outcome based aspirations for the child. This needs to be delivered in a simple and easily read format. It will however, never replace communication from practitioners who know the child well and have a good understanding of their history and needs.
This question raises big issues and has to be addressed through practice. This is against a national context of an unstable, inexperienced and undervalued workforce. There are also factors beyond practitioners control such as any legal proceedings. A further consideration is that it appears the PLO is not really taken into account when a matter goes into Court. The present Court process is not conducive to planning with a child’s needs at the centre. Expert reports etc all can delay the planning process even when the Local Authority has submitted their expert opinions. Aside from these factors, there is enough in guidance to give the necessary framework e’g a permanency plan by the 2nd LAC review. Additionally, Local Authorities have improved their practice with matching and with wider commissioning frameworks. This allows placement choice and the matching process and Standing Order 31 ensure links with education and health. It is my view, decisions are made with regards to better information about the child’s needs and potential risks can be explored more thoroughly,
There are various methods available to practitioners if followed. Training in terms of preparation assist foster parents to ask the right questions. Risk assessments should be completed once a match is considered so this can be done in the context of the proposed placement.
There again is a framework for addressing this issue but time, location and availability all play a part in this. Children and young people need to have a positive view of their social worker and trust them if they are to express any view. There are mechanisms in place to seek their views in other ways - such as Advocacy, completing their own LAC documents, web-sites etc. As practitioners, we could do better at listening to children when placements end. Usually the energy is directed to planning for the next stage.
In my opinion, there are too many practitioners involved in this issue. It is also confused more if the child is placed in another Local Authority. S.O.31 clarified health and social services roles but not Education where it is the receiving Authority who makes the ultimate decision about a school, not the placing Authority. Many L.A’s have LAC co-ordinators. It is my experience that where foster parents may be in the best position to consider educational issues, they are often disempowered by the system. This is an area where there could be clarification.
There are systems in place to consider quality such as LAC reviews and Foster Parent reviews and supervision but these systems need to be used effectively. Local Authorities are also using their commissioning strategies to better effect.
Therefore in summary it is my opinion, this area of service is probably over regulated. If the existing systems are to be used more effectively, there is a need to increase capacity and stabilise the workforce so they became more experienced and built up the very necessary relationships with our Looked After population and other Agencies.
There is probably a case to develop user friendly (i.e practitioner led) documentation across Wales to assist with consistency. We should be getting away from a tick box culture and invest in documents that relate history, a significant chronology as well as an outcome based approach that is based on individual need.
