To consider the Corporate Parenting Strategy 2020-2023, the Care Leavers covenant and fostering and adoption annual reports.

The committee considered a report from the Head of Looked After Children (HLAC) to undertake pre-decision scrutiny on the Corporate Parenting Strategy 2020 – 2023, the Care Leavers Covenant and the Fostering and Adoption annual reports. The report was introduced by the Head of Looked After Children who outlined the following in her presentation to the meeting:

·         The refreshed strategy would be taken to cabinet in September following the end of the previous strategy which had been felt to be a success

·         The corporate parenting strategy had been developed with the corporate parenting panel and each of the priorities in the strategy was led by a panel member working alongside your voice matters.

·         Young people were a part of developing the strategy

·         The strategy has been reduced in size to focus on important elements and those which will make a difference to children and young people. It is a responsibility of all councillors and officers as well as partner agencies to deliver on the corporate parenting expectations as set out in legislation.

·         The care leavers covenant is a new initiative and was contained in the DfE’s keep on caring policy to promote five key outcomes for care leavers. Herefordshire had been identified as a trailblazer local authority and therefore it was important that the council lead by example. Through the care leavers covenant the objective was to work with local businesses, agencies and the third sector to encourage a commitment to the care leavers covenants. Such local bodies would be approached to see what more they could do to support young people to establish themselves as young adults.

·         The fostering and adoption annual reports detailed the achievements and areas for development and improvement for each of the services over last year and priorities for the current year. The adoption service was provided by Adoption Central England (ACE) which was a regional adoption agency (RAA) led by Warwickshire but with Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Coventry and Solihull. The Assistant Director Safeguarding and Family Support explained that she was the chair of the ACE executive board and would represent strongly the interests of Herefordshire. Membership of the RAA had brought a number of benefits which had strengthened the adoption of children from the county.  ACE provided skills and expertise in the recruitment of adopters who were then well supported and assisted the placement of children in a timely manner where adoption was the plan approved by the court. It was likely that evidence of good performance in this area could be brought to the committee shortly.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·         The new format of the corporate parenting strategy was commended.

·         The difficulty for care leavers to get jobs and training as a result of the pandemic was explained and it was beholden on all to help where possible. Partner organisations such as Halo, Hoople and Balfour Beatty should commit to the care leavers covenant, large contractors engaged by the council to undertake large infrastructure projects in Herefordshire should also commit.

·         The 16+ champion was queried and when a member would be appointed to the role. The cabinet member children and families explained that she understood that two volunteers had put themselves forward and that governance would be taking this forward shortly.  

·         School performance at key stage 1 to key stage 4 was queried and the reasons why it appeared to be a low performance. The HLAC explained that looked after children were a relatively small cohort within each year group and there could be great variation in educational outcomes for children. However this should not be used as an excuse and the data should be interrogated further.

·         The implications of the reduction of Herefordshire Intensive Placement Support Service (HIPSS) providers was queried. The HLAC explained that there had been a reduction during the year despite an objective to increase the number. There had been significant difficulty in attracting new carers to the scheme. The carers did tend to suffer from fatigue due to the intense support that was required. Some HIPSS carers had committed to providing permanency to children who had stepped down from residential placements to HIPSS which was viewed as success. This has however reduced the number of carers. Work to attract carers had been investigated and it had been agreed that a different approach would be undertaken. New carers would continue to be sought but also HIPSS placements would be offered; to allow existing, approved carers to offer a placement for a young person who was in a residential setting. A potential reason people were dissuaded from being a HIPSS carer was that there was a perception of a lack of choice concerning which child would be placed even though this was always subject to suitability matching. 16 children and young people had been identified that were currently in residential settings and would be suited to a fostering family. Carers who felt they would be capable of working with HIPSS would be engaged and spoken to regarding the children who had been identified for a step-down from residential settings and it would be possible to determine if any were a good match. The same allowance for HIPSS carers would be provided to foster carers providing a HIPSS placement. The same support package would also be provided which it was hoped would broaden the opportunities to step children down from residential placements.

·         It was noted that in the last plan there had been an intention to improve retention of foster carers by providing a better offer. It was understood that this should have been completed before the pandemic but was now not possible until the end of the year. The HLAC explained that the retention of foster carers had been a priority for a number of years. A strategy had consisted of increasing investment in training and the financial support provided to carers. It was important that training of foster carers was interesting, diverse and adaptable and an investment of £11,000 had enabled the purchase of an online training package specifically for foster carers. This had resulted in an increase in training particularly of secondary carers in a household. It had been particularly important during the pandemic as the face to face training offer was paused; one outcome of the online training had been an increase in the amount of training being completed. Alongside the online training offer there was also work to develop more bespoke face to face training and how it can be delivered over conference call software. Preparation courses have continued to be delivered through such software during the pandemic with good feedback. The intention to increase allowances for foster carers had been a significant piece of work and draft proposals were being finalised for approval in the next couple of months by Cabinet. Consultation was still required with foster carers. Foster carers were paid in two separate parts, an age related allowance was paid, the minimum level of which was set by the DfE, and a fee was paid at a level which was commensurate with the skill and experience of the foster carer in line with common practice. The fee element of the council’s offer had fallen behind what some other local authorities were paying which needed addressing through the Cabinet decision.

·         It was noted that the number of sleepover carers had reduced. The HLAC confirmed that five carers had been lost from the scheme over the last year for a number of reasons including some carers moving into the main fostering pool and others who decided it was not right for them. The scheme had suffered due to the lack of a coordinator in post for much of the last financial year. The post has now been filled and it is a priority to promote the scheme and recruit new carers. Communication had been impacted by a turnover of staff in the fostering service; relationships were important to foster carers and having a consistent social worker was desirable. Due to the staffing turnover there had been a reallocation of foster carers to social workers some of whom have had several changes. Agency workers had been used for a time and several changes of worker has impacted upon communication and consistency with some foster carers. The team was fully staffed again with permanent staff members and where new foster carers were recruited they were allocated a permanent member of staff and a family support worker

·         It was noted that as a result of the pandemic the service had managed to clear the backlog of life story books and it was hoped that there would not be such a backlog in future. The HLAC confirmed that there had been a significant backlog which had been almost cleared and almost no children awaiting adoption were waiting for the work; all children who had been adopted had a completed life story book. It was important that the position was not lost and a system was in place to track children when the work was completed and ensure a backlog did not emerge again. It also formed part of performance reporting for the service.

·         It was noted that there was an intention to develop a mental health pathway for children in care and their carers and surprise was expressed that one was not already in existence. This was felt to combine with the recommendation of the committee in respect of mental health.

·         The penultimate bullet point of the care leavers covenant was not felt to be clear and it was requested that it was reworded. The HLAC would look at the wording and confirmed that it was attempting to convey that the council uses its commissioning and procurement opportunities to incorporate improvement and added value for looked after children and care leavers within its contacts. A meeting had been undertaken with the Head of Procurement to discuss how it could be implemented at the council. Part of the opportunities involved working with Balfour Beatty and Hoople to ensure there were employment opportunities. Other examples included getting good deals for care leavers on mobile phones or laptops as the council was procuring large supplies of such products.

·         The councillors mentoring scheme for looked after children was queried as each councillor had something to offer to support young people. It was understood that looked after children wanted councillors to consider the impact their decisions had on them. The HLAC explained that it had been very difficult to match care leavers to a member. A new councillors offer had been developed at the previous meeting of the corporate parenting panel which would be shared over the summer. The new offer provides options for a councillor to select that they would be willing to undertake. Looked after children wanted to know that councillors were interested, they cared and they were doing what they could in their role to help support them. The DCF explained that it was important that councillors considered in all their work how their actions could benefit looked after children.

·         The role of the council and councillors to signpost looked after children to apprenticeship opportunities at local organisations was also raised. It was queried whether the council offered apprenticeship opportunities. The HLAC explained that there had been some apprenticeships for older looked after children and care leavers; in the last financial year there had been three. It was recognised that the young people needed a lot of support and work was required to determine how the service could work with them to support applications and ensure that they have the opportunity to do the job and be successful. The feedback and experience of staff members who had worked with care leavers was that they had underestimated the level of support that was required. Advance notice of apprenticeship notices were provided to the service to enable the 16+ team to talk to young people who were potentially suitable for the posts. Very few went on to apply for suitable posts therefore work was required to address the confidence and employability skills of care leavers.    

·         It was noted that the number of people now in suitable accommodation was an impressive increase over a four year period.

·         The proportion of children coming into care against local and national trends was stark and the trajectory of the trend was observed as steeper than other areas. There had not been a discussion of why it was happening and if there was more that could be done to prevent children becoming looked after. The HLAC acknowledged that the number of children in care was higher than statistical neighbours which is the result of excess children coming into care and insufficient numbers leaving care. The council was addressing the issue and in the previous financial year the numbers of children coming into care had reduced. The council was more in line with statistical neighbours but there was more room for improvement. A new edge of care team had started work recently and there were some indicators to suggest that it was assisting the prevention of children coming into care. This was particularly the case for older children where domestic conflict had caused family breakdown and where such children were not best served in residential care, most likely out of county, away from family, friends and educational settings. More work was required around the numbers leaving care and it was acknowledged that the service had been too risk averse. An attitude had existed whereby conditions had to be perfect to allow a return to the family environment. There was a need to change this culture and accept that children belong in the family environment and unless it was very unsafe they should be with their families with support from the council. Those young people who were settled in care with foster carers would be supported to leave care through a special guardianship order (SGO) and there had been a number of successful applications. There were currently 36 applications in court for either SGO or discharge of care order due to children returning home to live with parents. The orders were likely to be granted and more applications would be made in the forthcoming months. The edge of care team were supporting children to return home and had started working with children and families. When proceedings were initiated officers were investigating whether children needed to stay in care or if there were family arrangements that could safely care for children if they were unable to return home. Plans for adoption were also pursued.

The Assistant Director Safeguarding and Family Support provided an update on the actions undertaken in the last 12 months in relation to a whole service approach to prevent children becoming looked after:

-       There was an updated procedure for the pre-birth approach which was devised in consultation with Health. There were a number of cases where women were pregnant and had previously had children removed. The policy and approach to this cohort was not felt to be as good as it could be; the new approach ensured intervention at an earlier stage to work with, support and assess with an intention to keep the child with the mother and family where possible.

-       The family support service had been reconfigured; nine of the family support workers who sat in court and CP section had been relocated to sit with the assessment service to enable support into families at the earliest opportunity. Child in Need work was now kept in the assessment service to assist intervention at the lowest level to help families achieve change. There had been investment in early help and family support team; from September there would be an Early Help hub working alongside the MASH to ensure cases where early help was required would be referred directly to the hub. The domestic abuse hub had just been updated and reviewed which was with the safeguarding partnership and was a multi-agency approach to intervening at an early stage with families with lower level incidences of domestic abuse. Three additional family workers had been added to the child protection court teams to ensure they could work with extended family members during proceedings to facilitate potential SGOs; currently at the end of proceedings children might get kinship carers but under reg 24 where they are classed as foster carers the service is required to return to court to apply for an SGO. Judge Plunkett has explained he would be content to make SGOs at the final hearing with evidence that child and carer had been prepared for the placement and a good support plan was in place for the special guardian. Initial permanence planning meetings were undertaken upon issuing and entering into proceedings to ensure family members could offer a permanent home to a child if the child cannot be maintained with the parent. At every looked after child review the question is asked whether the child could return to the home; the question had not been put frequently enough and being taken into care did not mean that a child should remain in care in the long term. Family circumstances change which might enable the child to return home.  Significant work had been undertaken at all parts of the system to support the prevention of children coming into the care system or to facilitate children to leave care if safe. Therefore it was not just the Edge of Care/Home (ECHO) service working to reduce the number of looked after children but a whole system approach involving a number of other teams. MASH assessment, CP court and the Looked after service had received additional family support resources. ECHO was working with around 20 children; despite the service commencing during lockdown, this had not prevented work with a number of families to prevent admission to care or to enable children to return home.

·         Priorities 4 and 5 in the corporate parenting strategy: to be physically and emotionally healthy; and enjoy a range of play, sport, leisure and cultural opportunities, were raised by the committee. It was noted that the priorities linked to the committees concerns regarding mental health. With respect to strategic partners identified under priority 5 there was no mention of market towns and the organisations locally who could provide support and opportunities to looked after children. The range of organisations currently in the document appeared Hereford-centric and it was queried if reference to market towns and local communities across Herefordshire could be incorporated. It was felt that mention of the youth games which took place in Herefordshire each year should also be included in priority 5.  The HLAC explained that the priorities interlinked and the involvement of organisations in all local communities to provide opportunities for looked after children was sought. It was important that foster carers were aware of the opportunities that existed for looked after children such as the youth games.

·         The distribution of looked after children across the county was queried and whether they were concentrated in Hereford. The HLAC confirmed that looked after children lived across the county with fostering families.

The cabinet member children and families explained that the intention was for all looked after children to have positive outcomes and to have the same opportunities as children across the county. It must also be recognised that they had difficult and traumatic backgrounds in many instances which demonstrated the importance of engaging and listening to looked after children and respond to their comments, interests and feedback. The changing nature of the support provided by councillors was as a result of listening to looked after children. The role councillors could play in signposting to opportunities for work experience or apprenticeship would be very important. An element of the feedback received from looked after children was a desire to contribute to and be respected by their local communities. In the past it was felt that looked after children were not given the same opportunities as children within their own families and the council was seeking to address and resolve this issue and remove restrictions to such opportunities. It was important to work with partners who were on the corporate parenting board including health and education to explore the opportunities they could offer. To have the wellbeing and opportunities for looked after children in mind when undertaking council business or taking decisions was now fundamental to the work of the council.

The Chairperson proposed and Councillor Graham Andrews seconded the recommendations below which were approved unanimously.

RESOLVED - That:

·         The wording of the bullet point in the care leavers covenant concerning commissioning and procurement required clarification;

·         A role for members of the council in respect of assisting looked after children could include the signposting of children in care and care leavers to local organisations offering work experience and apprenticeship opportunities; and

·         Priority 5 of the corporate parenting strategy should include mention of market towns, the involvement of local communities and the youth games.