To receive a response from officers on the Challenge Cards presented to previous meetings of the Board.
Minutes:
Challenge No 1 – Transport: Officers informed the Board there had been a transport review and officers had been working with SEND colleagues and SEND cohort as that was first part of the transport improvement review. The second part of the challenge was to review the general transport across the county. The Corporate Parenting Officer was to meet with the Chief Executive of Participation People and the transport review project team. She would be revisiting this with a colleague in March, and nothing would be arranged until March/April of this year. The Corporate Parenting Officer would bring an update to the care leavers session. It was noted this was complicated and important that it was kept on the tracker.
Noted
Challenge No 3 - Foster Care Training: There had been a total of 142 trained and the Chief Executive of Participation People confirmed Dorset was being held to account and suggested the two CLiCC representatives attending the meeting have a conversation about Foster Carer Training and submit a report to the next formal meeting of the Board. This would then tie into the Satisfaction Survey.
A meeting had been arranged to take place on 8 April 2020 between officers and young people to discuss how young people can influence the training.
Resolved
That the two CLiCC representatives submit a report on Foster Carer Training to the next formal meeting of the Corporate Parenting Board on the 23 April 2020.
Challenge No 4 - Access to Records: The Challenge was how could young people under the age of 18 have access to their records. Officers confirmed that young people under the age of 18 could request access to their records. Social Care colleagues would ensure the young person was ready and providing it was safe to do so after a conversation with the family the usual application would have to go to the Data Protection Team to process.
The Chairman asked what role the IRO’s would have. It was confirmed the IRO’s would support and assist young people. Guidance for social workers would be co-produced with the help of young people.
The Chief Executive of Participation People asked for the process to be youth proofed and user friendly.
The Chief Executive of People – Children confirmed officers would want to ensure it was the right time for that young person to access their records and ensure they were helped in reading them as they could be upsetting.
One of the CLiCC representatives asked what the application was they would have to make if a young person wanted to see part of their records and would they be available to under 18-year olds. Would every social worker do life stories. Officers explained how young people could access their records or part of their records and if under 18 that would also be possible. Regarding life stories they would have to be completed at the right time and were more of a day to day issue rather than historical. Records could be very business focussed whereas the life account would be written to the young person and about them and their family.
Noted
Challenge No 2 - ID Cards: Officers confirmed the ID cards had been completed. CLiCC representatives confirmed they would be well received.
Noted
Challenge No 5 - Communications between School and Social Workers: The Virtual School Head had attended the IRO team meetings and emphasised the importance of communication between school and social workers or the Virtual School. The Virtual School Head had set a question for CLiCC asking for them to be more specific about what was not being communicated at school. The CLiCC representatives would ask young people at school.
Resolved
That the CLiCC representatives ask young people at school what was not being communicated at school.
Challenge No 6 - Delegated Powers: The Corporate Parenting Officer confirmed that the delegated powers authority should be discussed at the Placement Planning meeting and team managers were responsible for supervising the process. IRO’s would be asking about delegated powers authority at review meetings. Officers were also reviewing how this could be monitored electronically through the IRO monitoring form.
Noted