The Strategic Director of Children’s Services willpresent a report (Document “K”) which provides the Corporate Parenting with an update on Bradford’s children’s homes, their Ofsted grades and the process of Regulation 44 Visits.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The report is for information only

(Suzanne Lythgow/Belinda Greene – 07582 100 936/07582 109 919)

The Strategic Director of Children’s Services presented a report (Document “K”) which provided the Corporate Parenting with an update on Bradford’s children’s homes, their Ofsted grades and the process of Regulation 44 Visits.

The agenda paper (Update of Regulation 44 visits during the 2021 – 2022 monitoring period) was taken as read.  BC/CS-HC said that the report gave examples of how the monthly Regulation 44 visits were conducted by the Quality Standards Managers and provided information on the twelve care homes in Bradford.  Of these twelve homes, one was currently unregistered and was undergoing the registration process with Ofsted: the process was being monitored.  Another had undergone an Ofsted inspection on the day of this meeting: the inspection had gone well.

The main issue arising from the Regulation 44 visits was shortage of staffing at all levels, which presented challenges to the implementation of all the necessary measures.  Recruitment was underway.

In addition to the Regulation 44 meetings, monthly meetings were held with the responsible individual and the two service managers: dialogue was open and improvement plans had been put in place.  The meetings were proving useful in providing early alerts to issues and improved lines of communication.  A peripatetic manager ensured consistency of record-keeping and risk management across the twelve care homes.  The panel welcomed this progress towards standardisation.

The service was moving towards a Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (TCI) model for physical intervention when a young person needed help: it had invested in a new training process to be delivered across all twelve homes.

The reporting format for Regulation 44 visits had been amended and action planning strengthened by ensuring that recommendations aligned with those made by Ofsted and others.  Issues had arisen with Ofsted on the timely receipt of reports: this had now been resolved.  Replying to questions, BC/CS said that written confirmation had been received from Ofsted that the problem had arisen at their end.

Asked about the impact on homes of the matching process, BC/CS-HC emphasised the importance of the matching process to the success of placements.  A national shortage of provision could lead to pressure on care home managers to admit a young person without sufficient consideration of whether the home was a good match for the young person.  From the end of 2021, new placements had been suspended and, as young people had moved on, many residential units were not now working to full capacity.  Residential units were being given more power to match new residents to the unit and the young people already in that unit.  A strategy was in development to reduce the number of young people in residential units with the aim of making the units more successful: the intention was that here should be more units but fewer young people in each.  Asked about the number of young people in residential units at present, BC/CS-HC said that most units currently had between two and four young people: only one was full.

The Panel noted that matching had been raised by Ofsted as a matter of concern: examples were given in the agenda paper, including in the section on the Ofsted inspection of Willows.   BC/CS said that the issue at Willows had not been about matching: rather, it had related to the specific needs of the young person concerned and placements that had not been within Willows’ statement of purpose.  Much work had been undertaken to improve Willows and the placement of a sibling group there had worked well.

Asked how emergency placements were now managed, BC/CS-HC said that this depended on the nature of the need.  The process remained unchanged: access to foster places was through the Emergency Duty Team (EDT).  If places were available in residential units, that formed part of the discussion.  Asked about the existence of a home that was specifically for emergency placements, BC/CS-BG said that this had been Willows: consideration was being given to extending Willows and separating emergency from respite provision when the current resident moved on.

Referring to the section on the Ofsted inspection at Wedgewood, the Panel asked about the statement that “The added complication is that Health have not been forthcoming with the specific training required”.  BC/CS-HC explained that the young people at Wedgewood had health needs that required staff who had specific training.  Due to Covid absences, there had been issues with the availability of staff for training.  There had now been movement on this issue, and the required training was expected to be completed.  Asked about next steps, CCG-CB undertook to address the issue of gaps in training.

ACTION: CCG

Asked when it would be possible for members of the Panel to resume their pre-Covid practice of attending Regulation 44 visits, the Chair said that she was working with the Assistant Director, Safeguarding and Review, Commissioning & Provider Services (AD/SRCP) on this: a training offer would be issued shortly.  Panel members welcomed this.

 Asked about references in the agenda paper to temporary managers who were not currently registered, BC/CS-HC reassured the panel that this related to managers who were not registered for the home in question, rather than to professional registration.   DD/SC explained that a registered manager could manage more than one site, up to a maximum total of six young people.  The Panel noted that this would be relevant to future review of the estate.

Asked the reasons for the high turnover of staff, DD/SC referred to the demanding nature of the work and the modest rates of pay.  The residential care sector in Bradford had not grown and thrived as it should, and staff who had been trained some years ago might not have fully grown into the increasing incidence of behavioural management issues.  Consideration was being given to provision of further training and whether there was a need to review staffing ratios.  A number of staff had been assaulted, giving rise to sick absences.  Running residential units required resilience and consistent support: there was some evidence that the support provided in the last six months was having an impact.

The Panel concluded that, while further work remained to be done, welcome improvements had been made.