Agenda item

The Chairman secured the Board’s agreement to consider items B1 and B2 as urgent business as the papers had not been placed in the public domain with the required period of notice.

1)         Mr Brightwell introduced the report and outlined KCC’s efforts over the years to have it addressed at a national level, with limited success.  The wording of the most recent Regulations relating to LAC placed out of area, which came out in November 2009, had been disappointing, but KCC would be responding to the consultation by the deadline of February 2010.  In responding to questions raised by Members, Mr Brightwell explained the following:-

a)         KCC has a good record of placing LAC out of county only when absolutely necessary, and is also the only authority to have a Pledge which covers the needs of LAC placed by other local authorities (OLAs) as well as its own LAC;

b)         Kent can reclaim a limited amount of the money spent on a child placed by an OLA, but the process for doing this is difficult and slow;

c)         The Waltham Forest judgement had been good news for Kent’s hope to reclaim funding, although the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) had reversed this beneficial effect by amending the ‘Belonging’ Regulations;

d)         some OLAs had a long-standing pattern of placing many LAC in Kent, and this might be because of a lack of suitable Foster Parents in their own area;

e)         The Children Leaving Care Act 2000 had introduced a rule that the last authority to care for a LAC must take on the responsibility for meeting their needs once they leave care; 

f)          The average cost of a placement in Kent with a KCC Foster Parent was approximately £40,000 per annum. Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) charges vary from £600 – 700 per week. Rising to £1,500 or £2,000 for residential care, and the IFAs would charge the placing authority this amount; and

g)         The funding mechanism was very complex, but an OLA placement in Kent would not necessarily bring with it sufficient finance to cover all a child’s costs. It was difficult to identify all the costs in each case and what was and was not reimbursable.

2)         In discussion of the issue, and in response to some of the information provided, Members expressed the following views and concerns:-

a)         To get a full nationwide picture, Members need to know how many out of county LAC are placed with OLAs across the UK, and compare these figures to the number of OLA LAC that Kent is asked to take on;

b)         Members need to know what level of payment per placement is claimed by OLAs when accepting an out of county LAC placement, and compare this the £337 per week per child that Kent receives. Some London Boroughs are known to get £900 per week per child.  If looking after a child in London costs £900 a week, and that child is then placed in Kent, at a cost to the London Borough of only £337, the London Borough is saving itself more than £560 per week, at Kent’s expense;

c)         It is not helpful that the DCSF sends out mixed messages by encouraging authorities not to place out of county but introducing a financing structure which does not support this.  Members expressed the opinion that the legislation was right but the financing was not;

d)         Members felt that the whole sum of money intended to fund a child’s placement should come to KCC direct from the DCSF;

e)         OLAs placing a LAC do not always provide the host authority with sufficient and timely information to allow them to make the best placement for the child, so the need for earlier and fuller information needs to be acknowledged and built into a formal process;

f)          The report which Mr Brightwell had prepared for the Board for today’s meeting should also be used for a meeting with GOSE which Mr Ridings and Mr Brightwell were to attend on 8 December, but to it should be added the views and concerns which Members expressed above; and

g)         When the Board has all the information it has identified as being necessary, it should press for debate of the issue at a higher level and make recommendations for more to be done to address the issue.

3)         RESOLVED that:-

a)         The report presented to today’s meeting have added to it the views and concerns expressed by Members, listed above, and it be then used to shape discussion at the meeting with GOSE on 8 December;

b)         The Deputy Cabinet Members submit a Freedom Of Information  request to the DCSF for the information set out in paragraph 2) b) above; and

c)         When the Board has all the information it has identified as being necessary, it press for debate of the issue at a higher level and make recommendations for more to be done to address the issue.