Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Children in Care Performance Scorecard

The Children in Care Performance Scorecard for July 2020 is attached.

Minutes:

The Director of Early Help and Children’s Social Care and the Head of Social Work, Children Looked After and Care Leavers spoke to the report, and had summarised the performance scorecard in detailed. In summary:

 

Children in care: Officers informed that the numbers of looked after children had reduced within the last six months, and there was also a reduction of unaccompanied asylum seeking children in care. The number of children returned home and no longer looked after had decreased.

 

Visits: Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the number of home visits had fluctuated and much of the visits were being held virtually. In September a decision was made for the return of face-to-face visits.

 

Performance: Officers highlighted the major issues and challenges within the care planning service where the service continued to underperform. Pathway plans and care plans needed to be completed within six months, which was an issue within the service. There was auditing of cases across the services and officers had noticed improvements in the quality of practice, and though this was good, there was room for more quality and compliance.

 

Heath assessments: Officers informed that the review health assessments and initial health assessments had been impacted due to consent from parents. There was lack of consent from children placed out of borough and young people were declining assessments. It was said that foster carers could work more with young children around this.

 

Fostering: The foster care service had improved and remained stable, and the number of foster carers was similar to the numbers at the beginning of last year to date.

 

Adoption: The adoption service was now formed as part of the regional agency along with eight other boroughs and this was working very well. Officers highlighted that the service had eleven children placed in adoption.

 

Care Leavers: Officers highlighted of similar issues where the service had more room for quality improvement. It was noted that with regards to pathway plan the scorecard measured the pathway plan from 18 to 25 years, though the pathway was not legally required from 22 years of age unless planned. Since April, care leavers were continuingly being supported by staff who enquired of services they required as care leavers also had a need.

 

Housing and accommodation: There had been a lot of work with the commission and housing department close to a young person’s 18th birthday.

Officers informed that they had placed eleven young people in social housing as opposed to last year where there was a low number of just one young person placed in social housing. This was a significant improvement.

 

The Panel discussed the information they heard and a number of questions and comments was put forward to officers.

 

The care leaver representative raised questions on the reduction of numbers of children in care and wanted clarity on whether the reduction was due to early intervention, and also whether the coronavirus pandemic was addressed as the number of children in care was proportionally higher; officers responded that there was more flexibility in working with families to meet the needs of the young person. The service was down in numbers and they were working effectively to affect change.

Further questions regarding suitable accommodation for a young person on their 21st birthday was asked, and officers informed that a young person was often provided with an appropriate accommodation. The use of a semi-independent accommodation was not considered appropriate as the objective was to embed the idea of a family home a young person can reside in. Officers further informed the Panel on the legal requirement, which was very low and was measured on a scorecard. The Panel heard that social workers and their young person were together to seek what was considered their ideal suitable accommodation. Housing options could increase as figures in price was lower than neighbouring boroughs, and the shared life accommodation was further mentioned as an alternative option.

The Panel would like to see a comparative as the numbers was not portraying a true picture. The Children’s Housing Representative spoke to the Panel advising that their service worked closely with children services. She informed that young people aged 17 and 18 if very independent, would receive a 1-bed/studio property to their needs. An area of support network was always taken into consideration to ensure what the young person had was appropriate. Housing options in general was specifically for care leavers.

 

Panel Members commended the work around PEPs which had done very well. There was concern that the children looked after health assessment and pathway plans was persistently in need of improvement, and raised questions to whether there was changes to threshold in assessments. Officers responded that the service was less firm and fast on threshold, and focused more on working with families to support change. This included the team visiting families out of working hours two or three times a week to support families. The purpose for this was to support change and resources available for threshold decisions, though this area needed improvement to push for progress. Officers further noted that indicators were red, and that they were working very hard to change this improvement, quality and performance and staffing. All staff within the service was now permanent, and this stability was hopeful to better performance.

 

Panel Members questioned the health assessments, noticing the very low numbers, the reduction in children looked after (CLA) figures and also wanted to understand why the local children had reduced whether this was due to lack of visits. Officers informed that there were some young people over the coronavirus pandemic lockdown who were not seen. The rate of taking children into care post lockdown had also not increased, and this was being looked into further. There was fifty-four local children noted that required accommodation. Historically, there had been more care proceedings, though this had reduced as the service was proactively working with families, and thus the numbers were not substantial to investigate.

 

Further questions on the availability of the 2021 targets was requested, and the Chair confirmed that the targets were set with the Improvement Board with the improvement journey. Officers added that the service reviewed the targets and set them looking for realistic targets.

 

The Chair noted the challenges within the service and highlighted that there should be a focus on reducing numbers coming into care.

 

The Chair of the Scrutiny Children and Young People Sub-Committee was present at the Panel meeting and participated in the discussion, highlighting that the challenges within the service was raised at the last Children’s Scrutiny meeting, where there were a number of children in care unseen, particularly children in need (CIN) children. Escalation was having to understand accessibility since lockdown, which was currently unknown.

 

ACTION: To inform the Panel of the CLA figures relating to health assessments to next panel meeting.

 

Panel Members further raised questions on suitable accommodation within the borough and other resources or opportunity sites such as the Croydon Park Hotel to address the housing needs of the leaving care system. It was noted that the Croydon Park Hotel had been considered and the need for temporary accommodation felt at this stage was pressing. Officers added that there was a reflection on the vulnerability of the young person and consuming too many young people in the same place. Having dedicated flats in new builds had been discussed with the housing department for young people to be part of the community, which would be an ongoing promotion for our care leavers.

 

Members further commented for care leavers to be on the dashboard to have a measurement on their destination. Further comments of the lack of support given to young people on their journey to university was discussed and Members would like to see change.

 

ACTION: To update the Panel with data relating to support given to young people in universities.

Supporting documents: