Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Children and Families and the Director of Children’s Services updated the Panel on developments relating to the Worcestershire Children First (WCF) Social Care Placements Sufficiency Strategy.

By way of introduction, the Director of Children’s Services made the following main points:

·       The strategy set out the aims and objectives to meet WCF’s sufficiency duties in relation to children placed in the Council’s care.

·       The quality of strategic planning was measured through a range of key performance indicators (KPIs) looking at outcomes for children and by Ofsted in service inspections.

·       Semi-independent accommodation was also part of the strategy but was not registered with Ofsted.

·       The principles underpinning sufficiency planning were outlined, including placing a child close to their local area, providing an experience of ‘family life’ and using care as a step to permanency.  The prevention of care was also part of sufficiency and included support for children to remain at home with parents where possible.

·       Provision should cover what was reasonably practicable.  The legislation recognised that it was not possible to have specialist placement provision in every local authority.

·       Members were reminded of the Council’s journey of improvement.  Worcestershire’s most recent ILACS (Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services) in July 2019 had recognised improved outcomes.

·       Attention was drawn to the ‘Strategy in Brief’ included in the presentation slides which highlighted the main proposals to note from the strategy.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Children and Families told the Panel about the recent independent review of children’s social care by Josh McAlister (the founder of the social work charity Frontline) and suggested it should be circulated to Members of the Panel.  The report had many synergies with the approach outlined by the Director of Children’s Services and cited other local authorities such as North Yorkshire, Essex and Hertfordshire with whom WCF had been working in partnership.  He highlighted the poor outcomes of many young people who had been in the care system and reminded the Panel of the importance of not defining young people by having been in care.  Each young person must be recognised as an individual.

Members of the Panel were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were made:

·       A question was asked about the most appropriate time for the Scrutiny Panel to be involved in the development of the strategy and it was suggested that, in general, it was important for scrutiny Members to comment on proposals before they had been agreed by Cabinet.  The CMR agreed with the general desire for scrutiny to be involved at an early stage.  However, in this case the detail of the strategy was based on the professional view.  The Director of Children’s Services reminded the Panel that this was a dynamic strategy and was not set in stone.  The strategy would be reviewed (although not re-written) next year and there would be an opportunity to add to it.  The Director was genuinely happy to take on board any ideas from Panel Members either at the meeting or at a later date.

·       It was suggested that, as Corporate Parents, there was a desire to give children leaving care the same start as Members’ own children.  In light of this, it was surprising that children were moved into semi-independent care at age 16 rather than 18.  In response, the Director of Children’s Services informed the Panel that, although Corporate Parents may want to provide the same things as they would to their own children, this group of children had very different life experiences and may have very different needs.  The experience of residential care and living with other young people in an institutional setting could make a young person very independent and resilient at an early age.  Semi-independent living provided independence with support such as a trained adult being there overnight.

·       It was confirmed that the voice and views of parents would be considered when deciding on the most appropriate provision for a child or young person.

·       It was confirmed that ‘connected person’ referred to what was previously known as a ‘kinship carer’.  A connected person could be a family member or a friend with a connection to the child.

·       Members were reminded that the details of the improvement journey since the 2016 Ofsted inspection had previously been reported to the scrutiny Panel.  The ILACS in July 2019 was very positive but WCF was aware of areas that were still in need of improvement.

·       In response to a question about why the vision and values of WCF included an aspiration to a ‘good’ education for all rather than ‘outstanding’, Members were informed that this was simply a matter of terminology.

·       A Member of the Panel suggested that comparisons with the number of children in care in other local authorities were not always helpful, as the important thing was to look after the children that needed to be looked after.  The Director of Children’s Services agreed.  However, she reminded the Panel that the County Council was measured against other local authorities and it was important to tell the full story including what were the trends and what action was being taken.

·       The Director of Children’s Services confirmed that, when a child came into care, social workers would assess what was the best type of care for that individual.  She was confident that carers were provided with long term support to develop the skills to change a child’s life for the better, helping them to overcome negative experiences and become resilient.  With reference to care leavers, it was the case that some had become young parents but many had coped very well with this.

·       It was confirmed that the range of provision for children with autism was always being reviewed.  It was recognised that it could sometimes become difficult for older parents to manage older children with challenging behaviour.  A pilot scheme was being developed whereby a personal carer would go into the family home and live in for part of the time.  The aim was to help parents who may need some support but did not want their child to go into care.  The Director of Education and Early Help reminded Members that it was important that WCF’s various strategies complemented each other and ensured the whole system worked well.  A survey for the Children’s Appendix to Worcestershire’s All-Age Autism Strategy was currently out for consultation and it was agreed that the consultation documents would be circulated to Panel Members.

·       Late identification of ADHD was an issue not only for children in care.  However, sometimes children with ADHD may come into care following family breakdown as a result of parents being unable to cope with challenging behaviour.  The coordinated contribution of social workers and health colleagues to the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) was important in avoiding a silo assessment.  Members were referred to Luke’s Story, a short film in which professionals reflected on a particular case.  It was suggested that it would be helpful for the Panel to view Luke’s Story and the Director of Children’s Services agreed to circulate details to Members.

·       With reference to private residential providers, the Panel was informed that within the region, costs were now very high.  Although all local authorities were on different journeys, colleagues were looking at a regional framework to secure residential provision at a reasonable rate.  The County Council would look at private providers within Worcestershire as there were no plans to build Council-owned residential provision.

·       It was confirmed that the plan was to close Hill View as a children’s home as its design, size and location impacted negatively on outcomes for young people.  The building would be redeveloped as semi-independent provision with overnight support.

·       Members were reminded that the quality of residential provision was assessed by Ofsted.  Also, each home received a monthly visit from an independent person who would look at the whole range of provision (including conversations with children and managers).  Outcomes of these visits were reported to the Corporate Parenting Board.  Members of the Corporate Parenting Board also undertook ‘keeping in touch’ events which linked them to a particular child in care and gave an insight into the life of that young person.  A buddy system was also in place where WCF staff were matched to a young person and would meet up with them periodically.  It was hoped that this scheme could be extended to all County Council staff.  It was not felt to be appropriate for Members of the Scrutiny Panel to visit residential homes as this would duplicate work being done by the Corporate Parenting Board and may reinforce the labelling of children in care.  However, it was agreed that young people should be invited to a future Panel meeting.

·       Concern was expressed that 27% of young people had been in residential care for over 2 years.  The Director of Children’s Services reminded the Panel that many of these young people were in stable placements and it was not felt to be appropriate to disrupt them.

·       It was confirmed that the definition of ‘family life’ included single parents and reflected all versions of family life as seen in society.

·       Refurbishment of semi-independent accommodation was underway and the Panel welcomed the idea of using local businesses wherever possible.  A new post of Property Manager had been created with responsibility for maintenance across the estate.