The Head of HR, OD & Transformation introduced the report which focused on the training for officers from both adults and children’s social care, which included mandatory training, certification requirements, how the Council ensured staff remained competent and demonstrated the balance between personal/council accountability.

Councillor Hebb remarked that the Committee asked for the report in order to ensure that standards were of the highest quality.

Councillor Kerin questioned whether there were any measures in place if an employee did not book on mandatory training courses, to which it was explained that training and development fell within the management framework and all employees were required to discuss and agree their development plan through ongoing discussions with their line manager.

The Committee were advised that all employees were subject to a six month probation period during which the skills and development required to undertake the role would be agreed within a set timetable and according to agreed objectives. The employee would then receive a full review after six months and the appraisal system was linked to the financial year, with a detailed appraisal being conducted for all employees at the end of March.

The Head of HR, OD and Transformation advised that the setting of objectives and development plans were undertaken simultaneously.

Councillor Kerin asked how often local policies and procedures were reviewed in relation to Female Genital Mutilation and Child Sexual Exploitation and whether other organisations were involved in this process.

In response, the Head of Care and Targeted Outcomes explained that the range of training was set by both the Council and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) and informed by the Multi-Agency Child Sexual Exploitation (MACE) group, who also worked in partnership with the People and Organisational development team. Members were assured that cross-checks were undertaken to flag up anyone who may have missed a course in order for them to be re-booked. 

The Committee were informed of the comprehensive training programme for Social Workers, for whom records had to be signed off by line managers and a random dip sample taken each year by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) in order to ensure that all employees met the professional standard.

Councillor Stewart asked for clarification around the audit process for care homes that looked after young people under the age of 16 years, which she understood did not have to be registered with the local authority.

The Head of Care and Targeted Outcomes explained that semi-independent care homes for those under 16 years were not statutorily bound to register with the local authority but that evidence of training around the prevent strategy and child sexual exploitation were monitored through commissioning arrangements.

Councillor Stewart commended the Corporate Parenting training she had received and asked whether providers were rigorously monitored to ensure that they were appropriate for the Looked After Child, to which the Head of Care and Targeted Outcomes advised that all providers were subject to a high level of scrutiny that included an initial social worker visit, weekly visit for the first 4 weeks of the placement and regular contact with the Reviewing Officer thereafter in the case of young people under the age of 18 years.

Councillor Snell commended the report which he felt was thorough and asked for clarification around the process if an employee was not meeting the standard expected despite training and assistance. In response the Head of Adult Services informed Members that training was constantly being undertaken in the day-to-day working environment and he felt the workforce was a valuable asset to be proud of. In circumstances when the expected standard was not met a capability process was followed where support was provided to the employee to enable them to improve or deal with any issues and in circumstances where it was not possible to resolve the issue a contract would be terminated.

Officers clarified the definition of the Victorian Risk Management Framework which was a model for describing the minimum risk management requirements agencies were required to meet to demonstrate that they are managing risk effectively.

The Committee were informed that training was increasingly offered online through e-learning packages as it was available to a wide range of people at any given time and cost-effective; however for high level issues more appropriate class room methods, or a blend of methods, were used.

Councillor Cherry asked whether there were sufficient ICT and desks available in light of the transfer of staff from Serco and the hot-desking policy, to which officers advised that the 7/10 hot-desking ratio was working well and staff could access training from a variety of locations, which included home working.

Councillor Hebb questioned how training was quality analysed, to which the People and Organisational Development Manager explained that:

·         Following all training courses attendees were sent ‘Happy’ sheets to formally request feedback on the session provided.

·         Feedback was also undertaken through the PDR process and three months after attending the course, managers were contacted to identify any improvement in performance.

·         That extensive work was undertaken in partnership with Thurrock Coalition, who observed training and independently provided feedback.

Councillor Hebb further questioned how much was spent on training and development and requested that a benchmarking exercise be undertaken to determine how Thurrock’s investment compared with other similar sized unitary authorities.

The Head of Adult Services cautioned against drawing a direct correlation between the quality of training with the amount of money spent as he felt it would provide a false picture of the support offered internally by colleagues, but acknowledged that it was reasonable to undertake a benchmarking exercise.

Councillor Hebb asked for clarification on a number of the training courses listed, including what was Extremist Ideology Training and why only one person was documented having attended. Officers felt that this was an error and reported that they would check the records to identify the discrepancy, as it was believed this referred to ‘Prevent’ training which had actually been undertaken by a significant number of employees.

In light of the discrepancy Members questioned how officers checked the integrity of training records to which it was explained:

·         All staff applied for training through Oracle, which could in turn produce reports.

·         Training was monitored through staff supervision and line managers

·         The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) annually sampled training records.

·         Officers provided feedback that training was fit for purpose.

There was a detailed debate on how training and development was audited in Thurrock in order to assess the integrity of training records and evaluate the success of the programme. Members explained that they did not doubt that training was robust but wanted to ensure that all records were accurate and that any gaps could be identified and rectified quickly, which was particularly important in relation to employees in the Children’s Social Care service.

Members were advised that training records were not currently subject to an internal audit by the audit team but the Head of HR, OD and Transformation confirmed that she would investigate to see if it was possible to include the audit of training records on the annual work programme. The Committee were advised that other services, such as statutory finance, would be prioritised but that this would be taken away as an action point.

Following the debate the Committee agreed to add two additional recommendations which included:

1.4       That the Committee request the internal audit team conduct an audit of training records as a due diligence exercise and make recommendations as they feel appropriate.

1.5       That officers undertake a benchmarking exercise to determine how Thurrock’s investment in training compares with other similar sized unitary authorities.

RESOLVED:

1.         Members to comment on the rigour and range of training.

2.         Members to review the information for comment.

3.         Members to be reassured that the rigour and range of training meets both national and local requirements, including legal requirements.