Agenda item

Performance Data (Children's Services) - verbal update on highlights

The Panel will consider a verbal update on the performance highlights from the latest Children’s Services data report covering period ending 31st January 2026.

 

Contact:        Jo-Anne Sanders, Service Director

Vicky Metheringham, Service Director

 

Minutes:

Vicky Metheringham, Service Director for Family help, Safeguarding and Permanence, gave an update on performance data to 31st January 2026 -

  • Initial child protection conferences – there had been a decline in performance in the timeliness of initial child protection conferences in January 2026. The main reason for the decline was a delay in invitation lists being sent to partners and family. This left insufficient time to schedule the conference given that partner agencies needed time to provide the required information. Solutions to improve the situation included reinstating oversight from the service manager and head of service, and meeting with managers to review the workflow and agreeing practical improvements. The timeliness of section 47 investigations were reviewed twice a week resulting in a notable improvement since January 2026. Where delays had occurred, social workers continued to see those children and clear safety plans were put in place with partners to ensure the delay did not expose the children to unnecessary risk.
  • Child protection visits – there had been a reduction in child protection visits according to the data, however weekly performance reports from team managers explained the children were seen, but that there was an issue with recording in a timely way on the electronic social care record. Proactive steps had been taken to address the issue. When children were not seen, this was mainly due to the family not being in at the time that the practitioner made the visit.
  • Child protection review conferences – there had been an apparent decrease in the timeliness of child protection review conferences. This was because a small number of child protection reviews had been rescheduled and therefore convened outside statutory time scales. Reasons for rescheduling were mixed, but included ensuring that parents and partners could attend. In two instances the report from the social worker had not been available due to Christmas leave, and the importance of ensuring the reports were ready was recognised. The overall 12-month average of review conferences which had taken place on time, was 91%, which was above the national average picture.

 

In answer to a question, the Panel were advised that the planned approach was to create a dedicated multi-agency child protection team that would redefine roles and responsibilities. This would bring greater consistency and oversight of decision making, and allow for more reflection during decision-making conversations. The most experienced social work practitioners would lead the child protection decision making.

 

Jo-Anne Sanders, Service Director for Learning and Inclusion, gave an update on the January 2026 exclusion and suspensions performance data and highlighted key points which included -

  • 13 notifications of permanent exclusions had been made, of which 4 children were at SEN support, 2 had an EHCP and one was a child looked after. In terms of answering a question on whether exclusions were proportionate, the following assurance was given:
  • When a permanent exclusion notification was received for a young person receiving SEND support, the learning and inclusion team would already have reviewed the evidence behind the notification and been assured that the decision-making processes followed were in line with statutory guidance.
  • Schools were required to provide detail of reasonable adjustments and interventions implemented, and the involvement of external professionals and the risk factors involved.
  • The inclusion team had also explored with schools whether alternatives to exclusion could be considered.
  • Governing bodies were required to review every permanent exclusion through a governor disciplinary committee meeting where written and verbal representations were considered, to determine whether the exclusion would be upheld or whether the leadership was directed to reinstate the pupil.
  • The LA worked with schools to engage with the inclusion team where youngsters received more than one suspension, to provide earlier support from the outreach team, alternative provision or time at a different school.
  • For children and young people who were looked after, the inclusion team worked closely with the virtual school.
  • Fortnightly monitoring for exclusions and suspensions took place.
  • Suspensions were significantly lower than at a similar period last year.

 

In answer to a question regarding the training of school governors, Jo-Anne Sanders advised the Panel that school governor training was commissioned.

 

Jo-Anne Sanders gave an update on January’s performance data on EHCPs and highlighted key points which included -

  • In January, 5,144 EHCPs were maintained by Kirklees, with 68 EHCPs issued and 81 new requests received.
  • Statutory compliance of issuing EHCPs in January was low, at 2.9%, due to challenges across the partnership and the spike in applications during June and July 2025.
  • Plans were being issued at 21 or 22 weeks, just outside time scales.
  • Systems were in place with the liquid logic portal and it was possible to pinpoint the stage of each plan and identify hold-ups.
  • In response to the Scrutiny Panel request for data around complaints, mediations, and tribunals, quarterly data and analysis would be provided at future meetings.
  • In January 2026, 23 complaints had been made  - 12 of those were at stage one, one of was at stage two. 7 complaints had been received  from MPs and Councillor Enquiries and 3 subject access requests had been submitted.
  • No Ombudsman enquiries had been registered and no complaints were at stage three.
  • Where concerns were raised, more were being resolved at the first stage.
  • The biggest driver for complaints was around placement and provision, which was a nationwide issue.
  • In response, time and energy had been invested into early resolution, with casework officers trying to keep communication channels open with families.
  • There had been an increase in requests for tribunals, due to system pressure and placement related appeals. Decision making undertaken across panels was broadly robust and most decisions were upheld.
  • There had been investment in staff training and capacity within the mediation and tribunal teams to manage complexity and timeliness.
  • Learning from mediation and tribunals was being used to inform service improvement.

 

RESOLVED –

1)    That the verbal updates be noted and officers be thanked for the level of detail provided.

2)    That the data on complaints, tribunals and mediations be included in the data booklet for consideration by the Panel at future meetings.