Agenda item

The Panel was updated on performance and financial information for services relating to Children and Families.

The Chairman of the Panel reported back on a recent meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board which had discussed provision of performance information to Scrutiny.  The Board had noted that there was no consistency across the Council of how performance indicators (PIs) were presented.

In the ensuing discussion, the following main points were made:

Children’s Social Care

·       For future reports it would be helpful to have narrative presented next to the relevant data.

·       PIs presented to the Adult Care and Well-Being O&S Panel also included a list of Directorate priorities.  This would be helpful for this Panel, to allow Members to check performance against priorities and targets.

·       It was confirmed that, if a child refused to take part in a ‘missing from home/care’ return interview, they would be invited to talk to another trusted adult.  Where these interviews were initially refused but later completed by a professional other than the Missing Return Officer (eg Social Worker or Residential Care Worker) they were often not recorded.  It was agreed that further thought would be given to developing a mechanism for capturing and recording these conversations.

·       With reference to county lines, it was suggested that it was not helpful to record these by district.  Members were reminded that this was the first time these figures had been included and the development of PIs in this area was still at the early stages.

·       It was noted that the figures for children who had experienced 3 or more placements in 12 months were reducing.  However, they were still felt to be too high.  Members were reminded that the reality was that in an emergency a child might come into care via an emergency duty placement and then move on to a short-term foster placement.  This meant they had had 2 placements straightaway.

• With reference to ‘Children Starting to be Looked After - % Looked After Within Previous 12 months’, Members asked if for future meetings this could be broken down by reason.

·       The Panel noted the higher cost of agency residential placements when compared to in-house residential provision.  Members were reminded that the challenge was to provide a permanency plan for the child, something which could not be achieved in agency residential care.

·       The position in relation to the number of children Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) appeared to be worsening.  The Service Manager for FFD and Partnerships agreed to provide further detail on the current position.

·       The County Council’s role in modern apprenticeships was noted, as was the involvement of schools.

·       The Cabinet Member for Children and Families referred Members to the annual report of the Virtual Headteacher which he felt may be of interest.  He also reminded the Panel that 19 young people who had previously been looked after by the County Council were now at university.

·       It was confirmed that all foster carers were provided with financial and social work support.  In addition, there were benefits that could be claimed by kinship carers that were not available to in-house foster carers.  The Cabinet Member suggested that for some kinship carers there was a dilemma about whether they wanted to invite external involvement into their family.  Concern was expressed that those carers who took on special guardianship orders were not eligible for financial support and could not access help from the virtual school.  Members were reminded that social workers would look at what was the best arrangement for the child.  A special guardianship order would provide permanency without the need for scrutiny from social care.

Education

·       It was confirmed that all those schools currently rated as inadequate were subject to academy orders.

·       With reference to school attendance, the Panel requested national figures to allow comparison.

·       With reference to elective home education, Members were informed that since December schools and parents were being asked to sign a new declaration.  The impact of this was yet to be evaluated.

• The Panel asked that future PIs should include data for:
  • Length of time spent in a PRU (and outcomes)

o   Length of time spent with the Medical Education Team

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

·       It was confirmed that there were no longer any outstanding statements as this had been overtaken by the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) process.

·       In response to a question about why the number of new EHCP requests agreed had fallen, Members were informed that a new panel was in place which was achieving greater consistency.

·       It was confirmed that some EHCPs named elective home education instead of a preferred school.  If elective home education was named, the local authority was obliged to support it.

·       It was suggested that the presentation of the figures for ‘students awaiting a special school place’ needed to be re-framed to properly explain the situation.