GetDoc.aspx?DocumentID=WjY72Qi9z%2b4%3d&MimeType=application/pdf&DocName=Ombudsman+-+First+Report+for+Audit+Cttee+July+2014

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCILPUBLIC REPORTReport to: AUDIT COMMITTEEReport of: The Chief Executive and the Strategic Director for PeopleDate of Meeting: 29 July 2014Subject: Ombudsman Report concerning a complaint about anEducation and Children’s Services matter regarding Ms B and herdaughter X.Wards Affected: All1. Purpose of Reporta) In December 2006, the Audit Committee endorsed a framework forinforming and involving Members of the Council when the LocalGovernment Ombudsman issues a report.b) The aim of this report is to inform members about theOmbudsman’s report, issued in March 2014, concerning acomplaint about an Education and Children’s Services matter,and how it was handled by the Council.c) As the Ombudsman has found fault causing injustice, it shouldbe considered by this Committee on behalf of the Council.2. RecommendationsThat the Audit Committee approves the Strategic Director’sproposed response to the Local Government Ombudsman’srecommendations.Page 1 of 8

3. Background Information3.1 A copy of the Local Government Ombudsman’s report of 12 March 2014,is appended to this report. All Ombudsman reports are anonymous, so,whilst the events described are real, the names of those involved are notincluded.3.2 Ms B’s daughter X was five years old when first referred to Children’sServices in January 2004. She presented with severe learningdifficulties and autism. In March 2004 the Council allocated Ms B 10hours of support a month through direct payments. This level of supportcontinued until 2011, despite a request for an increase in 2005.3.3 The essence of the complaint is that the Council:-• failed to have any contact with X or Ms B between November2006 and March 2011• carried out an assessment in 2011 which was inaccurate and wasnot discussed with Ms B, her mother and carer, but was used bya Resource Panel to determine that the same level of supportshould continue• took 2 years to go through the complaints procedure and complywith the recommendations made• carried out another inadequate assessment as a result of thecomplaint and failed to produce a care plan to show how X’sneeds and those of her carer would be met by the supportprovided.4. The Key EventsThe Assessment Process4.1 Following the Council’s appointment of a new Head of Service toDisabled Children’s Services, it carried out an audit of children who hadnot been seen for some time. A social work assistant contacted Ms Bin February 2011 and visited her in March 2011. She recommendedthe case should be re-assessed and that support hours should beincreased.4.2 Although the assessment was started in April 2011, the social workerentered the start date of this assessment on records as June 2011 toensure the assessment appeared to have been completed within the35 days allowed at that time.4.3 The assessment determined that X had moderate learning difficulties.She has Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit and HyperactivityDisorder and Dyspraxia, requiring support to maintain hygiene etc.Page 2 of 8

She is statemented and attends a Special School. Her mother, a loneparent in full time employment, suffered exhaustion due to X’s poorsleep pattern and the constant supervision Ms B had to provide whenher daughter was awake.4.4 The social worker recommended a doubling of the level of directpayments. Although her Team Manager initially noted on the file thatshe agreed with this request, she later noted that further use ofcommunity resources should be made prior to a request for increaseddirect payments. The social worker did not show Ms B theassessment, and she therefore did not have the opportunity to correcterrors or to add her views, before its submission to the ResourcesPanel.4.5 In September 2011, Ms B received a letter to tell her that theCommunity Resources Panel had considered her case and decided tocontinue with direct payments for 10 hours a month. The Panelconsidered that Ms B needed help to find a child minder or child careprovider as X would not be able to continue to attend breakfast/afterschool club due to her age. The Panel also provided information aboutFamily Information Services which gives families of children withdisabilities information about activities and support services acrossBirmingham. There is no record of Disabled Children’s Servicesproducing a care plan.The complaint process4.6 In August 2011 Ms B complained to the Head of Disabled ChildrenServices about the delay in completing the assessment. She alsocomplained about the failure by the social worker to share the contentsof the assessment with her and a lack of clarity in the process ofallocating direct payments for children with disabilities.4.7 In December 2011, the Council responded to Ms B’s complaint. Shewas unhappy with this and in January 2012 Ms B progressed hercomplaint. An Independent Investigating Officer completed a Stage 2investigation on 4 June 2012, and the Adjudicating Officer respondedon 30 July 2012 accepting the findings. Amongst these was thecompletion of a full re-assessment of X’s needs to include issues offinancial support, community resources, activities and carer respite.4.8 Still dissatisfied, Ms B proceeded to a Stage 3 Independent Panel inSeptember 2012. In October 2012 the Directorate accepted theIndependent Review Panel report findings and confirmed it would reassessX’s needs.4.9 In December 2012, Ms B complained to the Ombudsman that a reassessmentfor X had not been undertaken. The Ombudsman closedthe complaint in March 2013 because the Council agreed to completethe core assessment.Page 3 of 8

4.10 In May 2013, Ms B complained again to the Ombudsman that theCouncil still had not undertaken the agreed assessment.Core Assessment completed September 20134.11 The Council advised the Ombudsman that there had been a delay instarting the assessment because we had made the decision to wait forthe Disabled Children Team to appoint a suitably experienced socialworker.4.12 The new core assessment was started in July 2013. It was to assessX’s needs plus financial support, community resources, activities andcarer respite. It described her problems with sleeping and toileting,with impaired communication and sensory difficulties and with bathingand dressing. It explained that X is not able to meet her own self-care,but not how her needs are to be met, other than by Ms B. Theassessment did not consider the impact on Ms B of caring for X, orconsider her own needs. A separate carer’s assessment had not beencompleted or offered.4.13 There was no care plan to identify what Ms B should use the 10 hoursper month direct payment for, or the proposed outcome from providingthis service. Ms B felt that the core assessment contained significanterrors about X’s means of communication. She said that she haddiscussed with the social worker during the assessment, thecommunity resources available to X and pointed out that most were foryounger children, and she could not identify anything appropriate for a15 year old girl with autism. The assessment did not identify anysuitable community resources.4.14 The Council advised the Ombudsman that its process was to assessthe child’s needs, go to the Resources Panel, and then plan how tomeet the identified needs. The social worker discussed with Ms B arange of providers of services under its short breaks service. Copies ofthe Family Information Pack were provided to Ms B. The TeamManager signed off the assessment.4.15 The social worker did not give Ms B the opportunity to discuss theassessment, or correct any errors or add her views, prior to the TeamManager’s decision that the current provision was adequate to meetX’s needs. The Resource Panel did not see the new assessment anddecided in October 2013 to agree to continue the 10 hours a monthsupport by direct payments. Ms B was sent a copy of a letterconfirming this in December 2013, and advised that the package wasto support and encourage achievements of goals for her child but therewas no care plan to say what these were.5. The Ombudsman’s Findings – Fault causing InjusticePage 4 of 8

5.1 The Ombudsman finds that the Council acted with fault causing injusticeby:-• failing to produce an accurate core assessment in September 2013• failing to provide evidence to show that it knew what X’s needs were,the impact of her disability on Ms B, or whether their needs couldcontinue to be met in the future.• failing to properly assess X’s needs and the needs of Ms B as her carerin line with its statutory duties. The Council could not properly saywhether direct payments for 10 hours a month were still sufficient tomeet X’s needs.• social workers failed to record what help and support X and Ms Bneeded, or which agencies might be able to assist them whencompleting the assessments.• failing to assess X’s needs in accordance with the Council’s eligibilitycriteria for services provided under its Short Breaks ServicesStatement.• failing to produce a care plan to identify X’s needs, and what would bedone about those needs.• failing to progress Ms B’s complaint through the statutory complaintsprocess expeditiously.6. The Ombudsman’s RecommendationsTo remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended that theCouncil should:• pay Ms B £4,000 for the injustice caused by its failure to properlyassess Ms B and her care of X to establish their support needs fromNovember 2006 to August 2011;• pay Ms B a remedy of £1,000 for the injustice of stress and anxietycaused due to the Council’s significant delay in completing the coreassessment when it had agreed to do so and for her time and trouble inpursuing her complaint;• appoint an independent social worker to assess X’s needs, and Ms B’sneeds as her carer. This appointment to be made within 28 days of thepublication of her report. The social worker to complete theassessment and discuss it with Ms B and add her views, within 45 daysof the appointment. The independent social worker to produce aproposed care plan, if s/he identifies needs which require support, forthe Resources Panel to consider;Page 5 of 8

• reimburse Ms B for up to three days unpaid leave from work to enableher to fully engage with the independent social worker to complete theassessments within the time scale allowed;• provide the Ombudsman with copies of the independent assessment,the proposed care plan and the outcome of the consideration by theResources Panel within four months of publication of her report;• make a further payment to Ms B, at a level the Ombudsman willdecide, following the independent assessment of X’s needs. This is forany shortfall in services received from August 2011 onwards;• review the way it assesses children with disabilities and their familiesand how these assessments relate to its Short Break Statement andEligibility Criteria.7. The Council’s View7.1 The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations at the draftreport stage and offered to make the settlement in advance of thepublication of the final report.The Council has already written to Ms B to apologise and made therelevant payments as part of the Ombudsman’s remedy. It appointed anindependent social worker and completed the core assessment in thetimescales set down by the Ombudsman.7.2 The Committee will be aware that the overall children’s social workservice is fragile. Managers have been addressing these issues toimprove performance over the last three years within the DisabledChildren Service. As a result of leadership and support we currentlyhave one agency Manager (out of 5), and a permanent workforce. Thishas improved the service and reduced complaints. However, thisparticular case demonstrates that services are not yet sufficientlyconsistent and that we need to continue to improve.7.3 Since this complaint was made in 2013, a number of improvements havebeen made to the service. Actions have been taken on many levels.The issues of lack of review, assessment quality and timescales havebeen addressed with both staff and managers. Some have left theservice as a result of the management action take to address qualityissues.7.4 There have also been specific training issues at an individual level forteams and at service level through supervision, leadership meetings andService Training Events. Training on Assessment Quality took place inFebruary 2014 for the whole service.Page 6 of 8

7.5 Assessment performance is, on the whole, largely above the required75% target and management action is in place to improve this further.There is some variation on the monthly figures, and so a specific projecthas been implemented to review and monitor assessment timeliness.The most recent weekly reporting is 90% of assessments within therequired timescale.7.6 The service has implemented a programme of visits and regular reviewsof disabled children receiving packages of support. This deals with 419children. It has been in place for some time, and addresses the concernthat this child (Child X), was not seen for some years before 2011. Wecan confirm that 95% of children are seen on a six monthly basis. Thereis also an annual review of their package of support. The expectedstandard is that every disabled child who receives a service from usshould also have a plan with outcomes and a review that occurs eachyear.7.7 The system for responding to complaints has been reviewed andupdated. The previous system did not address the actions sufficientlywell and a further action check has been put in place. This has reducedthe likelihood of the service failing to follow up on agreed actions. It ismonitored twice each month (although more on occasions, wherenecessary).7.8 The Disabled Children’s Service Managers, together withCommissioners, and some colleague professionals are reviewing theEligibility Criteria to ensure that it is in line with the Short Breaks policy.This work began in April in response to the Local GovernmentOmbudsman’s report. It is being reviewed with a number of staff. Weanticipate that the process will be completed by the end of June 2014.7.9 In order to improve further, the service has commissioned anindependent experienced professional with some knowledge of DisabledChildren’s Services to assess the current services and makerecommendations. We are planning for this exercise to take place inearly July, with a report by the end of July.8. Legal and Resource ImplicationsThe agreed payments have been made from an appropriate budget.9. Risk Management & Equality Impact Assessment IssuesThe main risk would be the consequences of further cases like this.Unfortunately, we have had a further report about an Education andChildren’s Services matter and I will be reporting on this case shortly.Page 7 of 8

10. Compliance IssuesCity Council policies and procedures are being strengthened since thiscomplaint was made.11. RecommendationsThat the Audit Committee approves the actions being taken in responseto the Local Government Ombudsman’s report.Contact officers: Miranda Freeman, Senior Liaison ManagementOfficer, Legal & Democratic ServicesChris Atkinson, Assistant Director, Children withComplex NeedsTelephone No: 303 2033303 6689e-mail address:Miranda.Freeman@birmingham.gov.ukChris.Atkinson@birmingham.gov.ukPage 8 of 8