Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Watkins, Councillor Price and Councillor James.
2.1 No declarations of interest were made.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2026 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The Committee received an update on the action sheet. It was confirmed that updates on all outstanding actions had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting. 4.2 The Committee noted the action sheet.
5.1 The Chair welcomed the Executive Member for Children, Families and Education, the Head of Children’s Services, and Group Managers to the meeting. 5.2 It was agreed to move directly into Member questioning. 5.3 Following questions by the Committee, Officers confirmed the following points: · There was no current national or regional research formally identifying the causes of declining numbers entering the social work profession; however, anecdotal evidence suggested that the challenging nature of the role and high-profile national cases reported in the media may be negatively impacting recruitment. · Locally, the Council continued to operate a “Grow Your Own” traineeship scheme, supporting at least two candidates annually, with additional places offered where funding permitted. The programme was fully funded, with a requirement for participants to remain in post for a defined period post‑qualification or repay costs. Delivery through the Open University had improved accessibility for applicants. · Early indications following the restructure showed a positive shift in recruitment patterns, with applications received from experienced external candidates and social workers seeking to transfer back from adult services, whereas previously recruitment had been largely limited to newly qualified entrants. · The revised structure was designed around the child’s journey, and although continuity of worker remained important, officers confirmed that in some cases a change in social worker following court proceedings had been viewed positively by families, providing an opportunity to rebuild relationships. · Newly qualified social workers received structured support through regular supervision, mandatory consolidation modules during their first two years, and access to dedicated workforce development staff. In addition, formal appraisal processes (“Work Smart”) were used to identify ongoing training and development needs. · Comprehensive induction arrangements were in place for all new starters, including extended induction periods, shadowing opportunities, joint visits, and mentoring support to ensure practitioners developed sufficient confidence before managing cases independently. · Officers acknowledged the balance between newly qualified and experienced staff remained an important consideration, with additional management oversight and the presence of senior practitioners ensuring appropriate support was available, particularly within high‑risk teams such as Child Protection and Court. · Early evidence from the Care and Support and Disabled Children’s Team indicated positive engagement with families, with officers reporting very low numbers of cases escalating into statutory intervention since the restructure. However, it was noted that a longer period would be required to fully evaluate impact. · Officers clarified that voluntary care and support approaches required time to embed, and that sustained engagement with families was being prioritised to ensure long‑term change rather than short‑term improvements that could result in re‑referrals through the MASH “front door”. · The Young Carers service had been integrated within the wider Care and Support and Disabled Children’s Team. This had not reduced dedicated resource but improved flexibility, enabling workloads to be shared across the team and ensuring wider staff awareness of young carers’ needs. · Outcomes for children looked after were monitored through statutory visit requirements and formal review processes. Officers described the use of an outcomes‑based tracking approach, with progress assessed at each review and supported through multi‑agency involvement, including education, health and specialist services. · Independent Reviewing Officers, commissioned externally, had reported positively on the impact of the restructure, highlighting reduced delay (“drift”) and improved pace and effectiveness of care planning. · The transition from a 16+ to a 15+ service was implemented to support earlier preparation for independence. Officers outlined that young people often moved into alternative provision or returned home at age 16, and earlier intervention at age 15 allowed improved development of independent living skills, family engagement, and pathway planning. · The 15+ team also provided specialist knowledge in areas such as exploitation, substance misuse, and mental health awareness, with staff receiving targeted training to meet the needs of this cohort. · Staffing allocation following the restructure was largely successful, with approximately 90% of staff placed within their preferred teams. Where this was not achieved, formal HR processes were followed, and officers reported that affected staff had subsequently settled positively into their roles. · Officers confirmed that a staff survey response rate of approximately 50% was considered strong, particularly as higher response rates were seen within teams most directly impacted by structural changes. Additional feedback continued to be gathered through supervision, team meetings, and service development sessions · Early survey findings indicating uncertainty regarding the impact of voluntary care approaches were acknowledged, with officers advising that meaningful evaluation required a longer period of implementation. · Officers outlined ongoing service developments, including the introduction of a pre‑birth support service (Crystal Pathways), funded through Welsh Government grant funding for an initial two‑year period, aimed at reducing the need for care proceedings and high‑cost residential assessment placements. · Workforce resource was now actively reviewed at senior management level when vacancies arose. This allowed roles to be reallocated between teams in line with demand, rather than automatically replaced within the same service area. · Communication during the restructure had been identified as an area for improvement. Officers acknowledged inconsistency in messaging between teams and confirmed that future communication would be delivered centrally to ensure clarity and consistency. · Staff wellbeing was supported through reduced caseload levels, structured supervision, peer mentoring arrangements, and access to formal wellbeing services, including counselling and resilience support. Officers also highlighted that workload pressures had been influenced not only by caseload numbers, but by case complexity and timing, particularly at key court stages. · Officers provided further operational detail that, during implementation of the restructure, there had been a temporary increase in workload due to case transfers, joint visits, and administrative requirements associated with reallocating work across teams. · Flexible working practices had been introduced where appropriate, including co-working arrangements for children experiencing anxiety during transitions between teams, allowing relationships to be built gradually. · The co‑location of Children’s Services staff had improved communication and collaboration between teams, with additional benefits from cross‑team working and shared learning opportunities. · Improvements in relationships with schools were reported, supported by clearer structures, improved understanding of referral pathways, and direct engagement through training, networking meetings, and integration with school systems. · Officers confirmed that while the restructure had introduced additional transfer points between teams, flexibility was applied to avoid unnecessary disruption, allowing cases to remain with existing workers where this was in the best interest of the child. · The service continued to operate a model of continuous improvement, with adjustments and pilot approaches implemented in response to emerging issues, rather than waiting for formal review periods. · Officers confirmed that while ongoing monitoring was in place through performance management arrangements, a more formal, whole‑service evaluation of the restructure would be undertaken after approximately 12–18 months. · In reflecting on lessons learned, officers highlighted the importance of consistent communication and acknowledged that, given the scale of change, not all stakeholders could be satisfied at all times, but overall outcomes had been positive. 5.3 Members welcomed the positive progress reported and acknowledged the scale and complexity of the restructure undertaken. Members also recognised the importance of continued monitoring, staff wellbeing, and early intervention initiatives in ensuring sustained improvement. 5.5 The Chair thanked Officers for their comprehensive responses and contributions to the meeting. 5.6 R On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following comments and recommendations for consideration: Recommendation 1 - Members welcomed the introduction of a pre-birth service through Crystal Pathways and the intended opportunities this project could bring. Members recommended a robust set of measures be developed in collaboration with HDRC colleagues, to ensure there is sufficient evidence to inform any future decision on the continuation of the service beyond the 2-year grant funding period.
6.1 The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 15th July 2026.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.