Agenda item

The Interim Assistant Director, Children’s Support and Safeguarding  presented the report.  The report informed  panel members of the key current issues in relation to children who were looked after, young people leaving care and the fostering service to thereby enable panel members to evaluate how effectively the whole council was discharging its Corporate Parenting Responsibilities and Duties. In particular, in relation to determining how effectively the council and its partners were achieving key plans and objectives for children and young people’s services and to provide appropriate challenge and suggestions to improve performance.

Members were informed that the report outlined key updates and described how children’s services continued to deliver its services despite the global pandemic and a third National Lockdown. Despite the challenges posed by Covid-19, Children’s Services had continued to deliver face-to-face support wherever safe to do so, and when necessary undertaken more creative practice to support children looked after, young people leaving care and foster/kinship carers. Such creativity had seen a greater use of digital technology to support visits and interactions with children, young people and carers. As well as presenting significant challenge it had also opened opportunities to consider new ways of working with children and families that had not been tried or tested previously. There had been a great deal of resilience within young people, foster carers and staff members during this time which had been positive.

It was reported that in the re-alignment of Children’s Services which concluded in February and was effective from 1 March 2021 the area that covered corporate parenting had been renamed Corporate Parenting with a new role set up as Head of Corporate Parenting.  Children’s commissioning would be moving over to Children’s Services which would help in the sufficiency area with the team being part of Children’s Services instead of being merely linked to it.  Also, as part of the re-alignment participation had been moved under one section. A vacant head of service post covering quality assurance and participation was in the process of being filled.  In terms of participation this would involve working with all young people rather than focusing on children in care and care leavers. 

Members noted that North Somerset had 221 children in care at the end of Q3 which equated to a rate of 51 per 10,000. This was lower than the Authority’s statistical neighbours (53) and England (67). It was not  necessarily a negative but it meant that the Service was able to support, through aligning with its visions, children and their families to remain at home or within their family network as opposed to becoming children in care.

In relation to unaccompanied asylum seekers Members were informed that in Q1 there were 12 whilst in Q3 that figure was reported as being 18.   The Authority had participated in the national challenges with colleagues in Kent whose numbers were becoming unmanageable. There were challenges in North Somerset in terms of language, culture and identity but the Authority was ensuring that planning was taking place for those children to ensure their best interests. Unaccompanied asylum seekers were generally older children (16+) but there were some under 16 year old asylum seekers.

  The primary reason for a child becoming looked after) in the first 

  three quarters of 2020/21 was abuse or neglect.

Members were advised that 74% of the Authority’s children at the end of Q3 lived in foster care either the Authority’s own or outside the district’s foster cares.  The number of children living in North Somerset was increasing.  It was noted that close to home was better for children in the majority of cases but for some children it was safer and better for them to be out of area or live with extended family members.  This percentage being 65% compared to 58% for the same period in 2020. Whilst these were not large numbers it was a positive.

In relation to health assessments and dental appointments, Members noted there was a period of time during the pandemic when dentists were closed and when they re-opened they were required to take priority cases first. The Authority was working nationally and locally on this issue as sometimes children who were neglected could have major dental issues.

Members were informed that in 2020, 16 children secured permanence through Special Guardianship orders. This was a significant increase from 2019 and 2018. Members were re-assured that there would be a robust drive to keep children with their families wherever possible and explore and seek out all family options with care planning for children’s futures as a priority.

An improvement from Q1, were 19-21 year old care leavers, not in education, employment and/or training (NEET) which was 2% above the Q1 figure. This continued to be a clear focussed area for improvement. Partnership work was ongoing with schools, further education, education and skills, colleagues in the LA and health colleagues to identify ways to resolve this. It was stressed to Members that this was not just an issue for care leavers but for all children in North Somerset.  The Authority had participated in research with the Universities of Oxford and York with five local authorities.  It was hoped to glean some knowledge to identify the barriers to employment and address the area of temporary employment or zero hours contracts which for many care leavers was their only option due to their educational status.  Further, with Rebute the Authority was seeking to extend Social Impact Bonds with trauma informed care leavers across the west of England extending to 2024 with a bid submitted for an additional 20 North Somerset care leavers.

It was reported that permanency was an area in the Children’s Improvement that was challenged in the Ofsted Inspection in 2020 in respect of the fact that the Authority did not match permanency for children in long term fostering quickly enough. An improved computer system and tracking system had been introduced to ensure that all pieces of work were joined up. An action had been completed for all of the young people.

Members were reminded that missing children was an area that was part of the children’s improvement journey. Contextual safeguarding was a very key area.  A children’s society survey was being undertaken with police colleagues and the LA taking the form of a self-evaluation of North Somerset. 

Members were informed that In Q1 there had been 116 episodes of children missing.  Examples included those children and young people that did not return home when they expected, those who were supposed to remaining inside due to COVID but went out.  It could also be more worryingly, in the case of a child or young person who was missing over 24 hours which the Authority was not aware of.  In Q1 there were 116 episodes with 48 children (18 children in care) Q3 103 episodes 56 children (20 children in care) – less episodes but more children. A robust operational system had been instigated which had been very effective because it not only looked at the individual children but also the strategic aspect in terms of what actions needed to be taken.

In discussing emotional wellbeing, a consultation service was in place, partly funded by North Somerset and CCG working with children and young people.  There was a continuum of need from acute specialist (CAMHS) to awareness raising as problems emerged. A local Somerset Company ‘Painted Horse’ provided equine therapy which research indicated was impactful particularly with children in care. A grant was available to support 330 children in care and the Authority had been offered a minimum of 20 of those places. 

  The Children in Care Awards ceremony had been hosted virtually using Theatre Orchard. The feedback had been positive from both young people and foster carers. The advantage of hosting a virtual ceremony was that it had been possible to invite more young people than usual.   Permission was currently being sought to share the Awards Ceremony video with members.

   In terms of sufficiency for foster carers the positive news was that    there were more children in in house foster placements than before.  This move was in the right direction but not at the pace required.  There were also more children in North Somerset.  Members noted that 18 more foster carers had been recruited. A marketing post had been established in the Fostering Team working across health and schools.  The previous sufficiency strategy referred to developing the range of in house foster placements for some of the more complex young people as opposed to placing them in independent fostering or residential care (when that was not their need but because a foster carer was not available locally) but the support of CAMHS colleagues would be needed to enable the wrap around support package to be in place for the young person.  

  Young people had referred to mental health and emotional support as being a real issue for them. Peer mentoring had been requested for older children in care and care leavers.  The Interim Assistant Director, Children’s Support and Safeguarding had confirmed this would be implemented but emphasised that it needed to be done correctly and in a safe way for young people.

  The Interim Assistant Director, Children’s Support and Safeguarding responded to the following questions from members (with responses in italics):

·       Just over a year ago the central role of being a corporate parent was emphasised to members including how seriously we should take our role which was not just about scrutinising but also sharing experiences from work.  A number of us submitted a list of offers outlining we would like to help.  In terms of mental health, I would have been already able to help.  However, my offer was not taken up.  I did raise this with the Executive Member for Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning and was reassured it would happen but nothing has happened. We have talked about the effect of the pandemic on children’s mental health and I find it really disappointing that no-one has come back to me.  Can we please do something about those offers which are still there.  If we need to re-submit we can do so and alternatively if it is not the right thing to do we can stand down. -  As Executive Member for Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning I have had a number of conversations with the Interim Assistant Director of Children’s Support and Safeguarding in relation to this. The pandemic has affected much of what we can progress.  We have gone forward with some of the offers and the team is going through what they can push forward.  It is hoped that with the easing of lockdown things will begin to happen.  The thing we always have to remember is that it is very much driven by what the young people want.

The Interim Assistant Director, Children’s Services and Safeguarding responded that she was aware of a couple she had passed on in Corporate Parenting Panel and agreed to obtain a copy of the list of offers and circulate it to those councillors on the list before the end of March 2021 to identify whether the offers were still live and whether there were further offers to add.  She agreed to meet with the heads of service and convene a meeting with councillors to discuss the way forward (either progressing the offer or explaining the reasons why it could not be progressed). 

·     We all have talents that can be utilised.  We should be identifying the skills that young people have to guide them to where they can go.  In terms of missing children, are we conducting interviews with them when they return? In terms of asylum seekers – do we interview them to find out where they come from and if they have any contacts and pick up any trafficking issues? – We have a statutory responsibility for every child in care and education to understand their needs and issues.  Plans are reviewed and there are supervision systems for monitoring.  In terms of missing children there is a statutory requirement that the police carry out a welfare call and that a return interview takes place.  We will be addressing all of these areas.  In relation to the return home interviews the take up is not as strong as it could be.  There is a duty to assess unaccompanied asylum seekers.  It addresses whether they already have family living in the UK and whether they have been trafficked.  Not all of the children have arrived by airport – some arrive via Gordano and some via Kent.  We work with them very closely.  They have an allocated social worker in placement.  We also investigate whether we can contact their family but in a safe way.  Some are very vulnerable.  We work with them to identify if they have been exploited.  We have a small group of young people who have accessed emotional support and education areas.  We need to make sure that we are going to be a good corporate parent to those young people.

     The Chairman thanked the Interim Assistant Director of Children’s

     Support and Safeguarding for the report.      

Concluded:

(1) that the Panel receive and consider the updated information presented in the report;

(2) that the Panel offers comments on both areas for improvement and areas of good performance;

(3) that the Panel raises the profile of corporate parenting responsibilities among elected members;

(4) that the Interim Assistant Director of Children’s Support and Safeguarding to convene a meeting with councillors to provide an update on offers submitted in relation to Corporate Parenting.