Councillor Okunade, Cabinet Member for Children’s Social Care, introduced the report and, in doing so, highlighted some of the key achievements of the Portfolio, which included:

·         That the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) had produced some positive media headlines and that it was expanding its role to include the piloting of the First Response Team to increase capacity to focus cases appropriately towards early intervention, where appropriate to the levels of need and risk.

·         That the MASH  brought together a variety of agencies into an integrated co-located multi agency team where information was shared appropriately and securely on children, families and adults to prevent the escalation of problems.

·         That the Troubled Families programme focused on families with worklessness, poor school attendance and anti-social behaviour and officers continued to work closely with partners.

·         That the Thurrock Local Safeguarding Children’s Board had continued to be proactive within the community, in order to raise awareness on safeguarding, promote online safety and prevent sexual exploitation and grooming.

·         That the numbers of Looked After Children in Thurrock had risen over recent years but the service was committed to supporting families to enable children and young people to stay safely in their own home wherever possible and appropriate.

The Cabinet Member thanked all the staff, Children in Care Council, Young Peoples groups and foster carers for their hard work and congratulated the Youth Offending Service for their achievements.

Members questioned the Cabinet Member and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor S. Little questioned why Looked After Children in therapeutic foster care placements experienced significantly better life outcomes than those in Thurrock placements and what the Cabinet Member was doing to close the gap.

The Cabinet Member advised that it was difficult to make comparisons and that all Thurrock Looked After Children had the same level of care, with many children were doing well and had good outcomes later in life.

·         Councillor Halden highlighted that the report identified that spending on agency staff remained a high risk area for the budget. Whilst he appreciated the service was demand led, he observed that the spending on Thurrock’s own staff was not, and questioned what the Cabinet Member was doing to ensure that spending on agency staff did not pose a risk to the budget.

The Cabinet Member advised that the retention of staff was a national issue and that Thurrock competed with London Borough’s in the recruitment of staff.

·         Councillor MacPherson highlighted that there were only seven lines in the report regarding the support provided to care leavers and argued that more work needed to be dedicated to care leavers in order to help them achieve improved outcomes, such as in securing and holding down tenancies. She further reported that the figure of those care leavers being recorded in employment, education and training was very poor – with a documented increase from 35% to only 42% – that was well below the 70% aspirational target. She questioned what plans and timescales the Cabinet Member had to improve the figures detailed within the report.

The Cabinet Member advised that it was the ultimate aim of the service to ensure that 100% of care leavers, without complex disabilities or mental health issues, were in continuous employment, education or training and assured Councillor MacPherson that she would monitor progress against this.

In response Councillor MacPherson felt that this issue should not just be monitored and requested the Cabinet Member to provide a written response outside of the meeting to detail what the service was doing to improve the outcomes of care leavers and those in employment, education and training, including timescales.

Councillor Okunade confirmed that she would provide a written response following the meeting and that it was important to monitor progress.