The Service Director for Corporate Parenting gave an overview of the report and presented a series of slides providing an introduction to fostering. The key areas covered during the presentation were:

 

·         Introduction to Herefordshire Fostering Service

·         Staffing in the Service

·         Service Re-Alignment

·         Fostering Recruitment and Assessment Team

·         Fostering Recruitment Developments

·         Connected Persons and Special Guardian Team

·         Fostering Support Team

·         The Home Finding Team

·         Herefordshire Fostering Panel

 

The Chair invited comments and questions from The Committee, the principle points of discussion are summarised below:

 

1.       The Committee explained it had invited comments from foster carers, a sample part of a statement was read out, which highlighted the frustration of a foster carer couple who had handed their notice in due to their concerns about the handling of children’s care not being listened to or acted on.

2.       The Committee raised concerns about approved carers with no placements being ready to go, but not getting any placements, and raised the question of who was responsible for placement allocation and how the process worked.

3.       The Committee suggested that the voice of the carer was not always heard and that there were historic instances involving complaints where the word of children and social workers had been believed over foster carers with 30 years of fostering experience.

4.       The Committee emphasised the need for additional fostering support workers.

5.       The Committee highlighted a need to ensure that the system for council tax exemption for kinship carers treated existing carers fairly and that kinship carers were paid a fair amount for the work they carried out.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that the issues around council tax exemption for kinship carers had been brought to their attention two days after starting in the role on 8 April 2024. Meetings regarding how to address the differentials between kinship and foster carer council tax exemptions had taken place with the chief executive and cabinet member and a report on the matter was expected on 16 May 2024.

o   The Service Director expressed disappointment at the negative feedback the Committee had received from foster carers. A number of consultation groups had been held during the drafting of the improvement plan and it was acknowledged that improvements and developments were starting from a very low base.

o   The Service Director pointed out that the previous Interim Head of Service had met with as many foster carers as was possible in order to hear directly from them. This information had been escalated and it was acknowledged that there was a real need to rebuild trust and confidence within the service.

o   Rebuilding trust and confidence in the service was an ongoing process and feedback would continue to be invited. Assurance was given that when difficult truths were highlighted the service would listen to and respond to them.

o   Supervising social workers who are qualified social workers were expected as a national minimum requirement, but the service had and was looking to recruit additional support workers.

6.       The Committee enquired about how the ratios of permanent/agency social workers and support workers were determined.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that the case load of a supervising social worker was set around the number of approved foster care households that the service needed to provide support for.

o   The Service Director pointed out that a workforce strategy was in place and one of its aims was to stabilise the fostering service with a view to greatly increasing the percentage of permanent staff from the current figure of 65%.

o   The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People pointed out that there were ongoing considerations and discussions about the profile of the workforce, including the numbers and mix of qualified social workers and family support workers. The number and mix correlated to the current workload and social workers had to be involved in particular cases in certain circumstances.

o   The Cabinet Member explained that the best way to get the balance and mix of the workers right was to make sure that caseloads were appropriate and manageable.

o   For the purpose of clarity the Service Director for Corporate Parenting highlighted the distinction between supervising social workers for foster carers, and social workers allocated to children.

o   It was noted that in the fostering service there were social workers who were dedicated to the support and supervision of foster carers and foster carer households, these were separate to the allocated social workers for the children and young people in the council’s care. National minimum standards required that supervising social workers were allocated where required, whereas support workers were not required in the same way - although the service was attempting to develop these roles.

7.       The Committee noted concerns that kinship carers were not always as prepared for their role as foster carers and needed as much support as was available.

8.       The Committee applauded the work of the fostering social workers it had met through Fostering Panel meetings, but identified a problem regarding communications and liaisons between social workers for children and social workers for fosterers.

9.       The Committee highlighted concerns about the correct channels for passing on information that the Fostering Panel came across that was important, but outside of its remit.

10.   The Committee raised concerns about how and why certain factors, such as housing, influenced decisions made in relation to the approval of foster carers.

11.   The Committee explained it had been asked by members of the fostering panel to enquire about further detail regarding the Fostering Recruitment Strategy.

12.   The Committee noted that the Fostering Panel did not have a permanent base and asked if the service could invest in providing a home for the Fostering Panel, which could be used not just for panel meetings, but also meeting carers, liaison meetings and training sessions.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that part of the role of the Panel Advisor was about ensuring liaison and communication between the panel and the service took place, including training needs of the panel members and the recruitment programme. The Interim Head of Service for Fostering would be working closely with the Panel Advisor to ensure there was clear communication between all parties.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that there were national minimum standards for approving foster carers and all local authorities would need to ensure that those standards were met, examples would include factors such as household type and bedroom space. However the service would always be open to feedback about how the standards were being applied.

13.   The committee highlighted that there could be a potential power imbalance between foster carers and the service, which prevented the carers coming forward with issues.

14.   The Committee enquired as to what mechanisms, such as foster carer trade union recognition, were in place for foster carers to raise concerns?

o   The Interim Head of Service for Fostering explained that there were foster carer representatives who met with her, team managers and fostering team managers on a monthly basis to take questions, queries and concerns from foster carers.

o   Carer representatives meetings took place on every third Thursday of the month, the service was focused on building these relationships with a view to having representatives involved in planning events, taking part in recruitment campaigns and being ambassadors.

o   The service also held an all-foster carer meeting every two months, where foster carers could meet with the service, suggest and discuss agenda items and share any concerns they had.

15.   The Committee pointed out that it had been told one of the foster carer representatives was leaving because their concerns were not be listened to and asked how many people had left the fostering service in the last 12 months and how many had been recruited.

o   The Interim Head of Service for Fostering explained they didn’t have the exact figures to hand and would get back to the Committee with that data.

16.   The Committee raised concerns that it had heard carers and representatives leaving the service were not being thanked for their work or asked why they were leaving and what could be done to make them stay.

17.   The Committee expressed an interest in attending a foster carer representative meeting in the future.

18.   The Committee noted there was foster carer conference due to be held at the Shell Stores on 15 May 2024.

19.   The Committee enquired if there had been any external support in the review of the fostering service and had there been any feedback or an action plan coming from it.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting said there had recently been feedback from a Department for Education funded piece of research called ‘Fostering Link Service’.

o   An independent consultant undertook a diagnostic review of fostering specifically in relation to recruitment and approval, the service expected a written report from this review, which would form the basis of a refresh of the fostering recruitment pathway and programme.

20.   The Committee enquired if the service was aware of work being done by other local authorities that could be used as a best practice benchmark for retention of existing foster carers.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting referred back to the Department of Education funded research and explained that phase two would allow the service to obtain support and intervention to assist in addressing any issues that had been raised.  This would include adopting examples of best practice from other places to refresh and revise the service’s approach.

21.   The Committee asked if there had been any input from partners at Leeds Council in relation to fostering.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting said Leeds would be supporting implementation of any recommendations coming out of the Department for Education diagnostic review.

22.   The Committee enquired, whether there was a way of knowing if children in the care of the service were safe.

23.   The Committee asked if there was any evidence to support the idea that in-house care was better than using external agencies and sought assurance that value for money wasn’t being put ahead of securing the right placement for individuals.

24.   The Committee asked why more people were prepared to lend their services to an external agency rather than the local authority, was it about money or the image of the local authority.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that in terms of safeguarding, the service had received four Ofsted monitoring visits that had reviewed quality assurance and case work in respect of children and people in the council’s care - none of those visits led to cases being escalated due to safeguarding concerns. Independent Reviewing Officers also reviewed care plans and placements of children.

o   It was pointed out that in relation to decisions being made, value for money was a factor, but it was not the only factor and considering the profile of the needs, risks and circumstances of a child drove the search for an appropriate match with a foster carer. Value for money was a consideration, but the needs of the child would always be paramount.

o   Where possible, needs of the child would be met by in-house foster carers, but there were some circumstances where needs could not be met in-house and external provision would be used.

25.   The Committee enquired as to whether children being cared for by external providers were on the services radar.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting assured the Committee that children in a care placement with an independent fostering agency would receive the same standards in respect of being allocated a social worker and dedicated Independent Reviewing Officer. There was no differential that would adversely impact a child placed with an external provider.

26.   The Committee asked for details about foster care for children that came from out of county.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that if children were fostered with an independent fostering agency in Herefordshire, the statutory responsibility for that child’s care would remain with their placing local authority, it would not transfer to Herefordshire. There were formal statutory notifications for when Herefordshire would place a child in care in another local authority and vice versa.

27.   The Committee asked what actions were taken following feedback obtained from foster carers acquired during the drafting of the Improvement Plan in2022, and how might existing foster carers see things as being different because of those actions.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that following the feedback, foster carer and foster carer representative meetings, newsletters and a tighter training programmes had been put in place and that there had been nothing like that back in 2022.

o   The key elements of a framework of support were missing/fractured back in 2022 and these had now been put in place. However, the service director acknowledged that many foster carers would still need to experience the changes before being able to move forward. Foster care ambassadors and champions would help with this process, but there was still much work to do.

o   The Interim Head of Service for Fostering pointed to the recommissioning of  HIPPS (Herefordshire Intensive Placement Support Service), which was providing a service called ‘Safer Connections’ that offers a broad intensive therapeutic service to support foster carers and children in their care.

o   There had been agreement for a psychologist to be recruited within the fostering service, so that children who couldn’t receive support from CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) could receive help.

28.   The Committee enquired about the mechanisms in place to enable two-way channels of communication between the voice of the carer/voice of the child with the service.

29.   The Committee asked about what kind of wraparound service was available for carers/children experiencing problems outside of normal working hours.

30.   The Committee enquired about the outcomes of reviews of the Fostering Service Capacity and Capability and the Sufficiency Strategy as referenced in the Improvement Plan from November 2023.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained that the outcome of the workforce review was about addressing the instability within the fostering service workforce, the strategy had been about building the permanent workforce in order to grow stability and use that as a platform to recruit additional permanent staff. Permanence within the management group was also expected to push things forward in terms of recruiting permanent practitioners. Internal processes to support the payment of external providers had been addressed and strengthened, which had historically been a cause of problems.

o   The sufficiency strategy had explored in-house residential provision, a tendering process had progressed and by January/February 2025 there should be some in-house residential provision.

o   The Interim Head of Service for Fostering pointed out that in relation to the Sufficiency Strategy the service had been looking at its marketing strategy to see how it could improve the number of foster carers. This included targeted marketing campaigns, virtual information meetings, local events and increasing visibility via improved standing within Google searches.

o   It was pointed out that the service now had a marketing officer.

31.   The Committee were pleased to see a specific page on the council’s website encouraging people from the LGBTQ+ community to consider becoming foster carers and suggested that the invitation and encouragement could be extended to other minority groups.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting pointed out that Herefordshire Council was a fostering friendly employer and that it would be good to encourage large employers from, for the private, health and police sectors to consider becoming fostering friendly as well - to promote and encourage as much diversity as possible within the local community.

32.   The Committee requested that an account of the 7 May meeting be provided to social workers in the Herefordshire Council fostering service.

33.   The Committee suggested that an elected member be appointed as a fostering champion to represent foster carers and act as a trusted representative inside and outside of the council who would provide foster carers with a voice.

34.   The Committee noted that there were currently 168 fostering households in the county and wanted to understand what the target was for the next few years.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting explained the target for new fostering households was six per quarter/24 per year.

35.   The Committee raised concerns about the potential disconnect between the marketing officer and corporate resources.

o   The Service Director for Corporate Parenting gave an assurance that the strategy ensured there was built in connectivity between the marketing officer and corporate communications team.

36.   The Committee noted the work done by the Diocese of Hereford in recruiting 334 host families in 18 months to provide 800 adults and 370 children from the Ukraine with a place to live. It was suggested that although the setup and requirements were different, the service could look at how those families were recruited in such quick time and if that model of recruitment could provide lessons for the fostering service. It was also suggested that the service could investigate approaching the 334 families to see if they would be interested in fostering in the future.

37.   The Committee asked if The Interim Head of Service for Fostering had any final comments before closing the item.

o   The Interim Head of Service for Fostering acknowledged the difficulties of the past and hoped that the service could move forward and meet the challenges discussed in the meeting.

 

Resolved: The committee voted unanimously to recommend that Herefordshire Council:

 

1. Appoints and promotes an elected member champion for foster carers.

 

2. Works with the Diocese of Hereford to promote fostering to families who had accommodated Ukrainian families.

 

3. Works with the Diocese of Hereford to learn lessons from their successful accommodation of Ukrainian families.

 

4. Provides an account of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee of 7 May 2024 to social workers in the fostering service.

 

5. Provides a permanent home for the fostering panel and related activities.

 

6. Amends its internet pages to ensure that the council encourages recruitment of foster parents from a diverse range of foster carer households.