Agenda item

The Children in Care Performance Scorecard of September 2018 is attached.

Children in Care Performance Scorecard and Children Missing from Care

The Interim Director, Early Help and Children’s Social Care, and the Head of Service for Corporate Parenting shared with the Panel the children in care performance scorecard.

Officers highlighted that there was a lot of work undertaken in September 2019. Areas where the service had done well and those requiring further improvement were noted. The good performance on placement stability was noted. The key area where improvement had been achieved was in LAC reviews. These have to be conducted within twenty-eight days of care beginning, and then every three-months thereafter.

Officers advised that there was difficulty in health and education.  Performance on initial and review health assessments was noted as improving; additional nursing resource has been provided to carryout reviews. However, there continued to be challenges with initial health assessments as these require doctor. It was the duty on the social work team to notify the health team of the need to conduct a health assessment.

Panel Co-optees who are foster carers shared that there was a definite improvement in this service as there were regular calls from nurses within a week or two of placement for arrangements to be made to complete a health assessment. Assessments are also taking place on Saturdays.

Officers noted that more work is happening to ensure that all children and young people have a Personal Education Plan (PEP) in place. This is being aided by a review of the processes being overseen by the Children’s Improvement Board and better communication between teams. This had been a positive outcome which started at the beginning of the academic year.

Members of the Panel were concerned with the amount of time being taken to complete PEPs. Panel Co-optees sought to clarify the details of all the parties involved in PEP production. They were advised that the social worker, school designated officer, foster carer and the child should be in attendance at a PEP meeting and a senior leader of the Virtual School could attend upon request. This is the participation required to develop a PEP as set out in regulation.

Ofsted had seen the scorecard. Feedback from Ofsted was that it needed to be revised. The Children’s Improvement Board had determined that the scorecard process will be reviewed by senior leadership with a focus on ensuring the correct allocation of resources.

Members of the Panel discussed the necessity of having legal parental consent in place for children in care to have a health assessment.

In response to the questions raised by Members of the Panel on the quality assurance of electronic PEPs, officers shared that a quality assurance officer was employed and all Virtual School officers were qualified teachers. Additionally, the Panel learned that there were a lot of PEPs being produced at the same time. Officers highlighted that quality assurance of PEPs is a focus given its role in raising standards. This is therefore subject to ongoing work.

Cllr Flemming arrived at the meeting at 6:09pm

In a separate report (the Missing Report), officers discussed the number of missing episodes and the number of children missing in September 2018.

The Panel learned that the service had young people within its care who go missing on multiple occasions. The service saw an improvement in the number of completed Return Home Interviews (RHI) (measured at 89%). However this percentage fell for interviews conducted with children placed in another local authority.

Officers clarified the definition of a missing child.

The Panel discussed the data and numbers of missing children recorded. They learned that data was recorded in two different ways:

(1)  Police: it is a duty on foster carers to report a missing child. Police should then conduct an interview with the foster carer(s). Each call to the police was a record of a missing child. Members of the Panel highlighted that it would be useful to understand the reporting methods used in other local authorities; whether these are the same across all authorities or vary. Officers shared that the approach in Kent was the same as in Croydon; police in Kent dealt only with missing children and not unauthorised absence. It was highlighted that it was important to differentiate the two terms.

(2)  the Emergency Duty Team (EDT): when a foster carer called the EDT, a missing alert on the children recording system would be triggered. The young person’s social worker was notified as a result. The Panel Co-optees discussed that email communication had been helpful for the foster carers. Further discussion highlighted that access to information and clarity of expectations for the EDT also needed to be revised.

The Panel learned that the service triggered the missing pathway if a child was missing. During placement plan meetings the officers involved would have acknowledged the possible reasons for the young persons’ unauthorised absence. Social workers would also have identify the risks associated with each child and ensure these are addressed. It was noted that these risks can change for each child overtime.

Members of the Panel asked questions about data and the process for recording absent children. The Panel also wanted to know about the safety of children once they return from a missing episode and whether this was measured.  Officers highlighted that each Return Home Interview would seek responses to questions defined by the context of the missing episode and what else was known about the young person. This might include if the young person was regularly missing and risk factors such as Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), gang affiliation and illegal substance misuse. The Multi-agency Sexual Exploitation (MASE) Panel would discuss individuals and specific causes of concern.

The Panel learned that within the Missing Person Team there was an analyst, who had a police background, and was responsible for mapping missing children in connection to strong gang affiliation, CSE and other types of exploitation. This was used to highlight patterns and establish trends relating to missing children. The service was working with the police and other agencies to resolve and have a clearer picture of any given missing episode.

The Panel learned that social workers were asked every week about the young people for whom they are responsible, discussing in detail any young person of concern.

In response to Members’ questions on the how quickly a Return Home Interview should take place, officers said that it happen within seventy-two hours from the date of return. This measure was tracked demonstrating performance had improved; interviews were being completed quicker with more being completed within the required timescale. Interviews were completed by a dedicated missing team and a Return Home Interview coordinator (an in-house social worker or through a contracted service). The Return Home Interview was also a written record in the children recording system on the young person’s file.

Action: For the Panel to receive:

1.    Information on how the service was reporting and recording absence vs missing.

2.    Information on the EDT review to be provided within eight weeks.

The Panel adjourned for a short break at 6:45pm

The Panel reconvened the meeting at 6:52pm