Agenda item

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Andrew to the meeting and invited him to introduce himself before answering questions from Members.

(2)          Andrew stated that he had been the Corporate Director of Social Care, Health and Wellbeing at Kent County Council for three years. He had previously worked for Kent County Council for 18 years prior to 2005. He had been a qualified Social Worker for 35 years. He held the statutory functions of Director of Adult Social Services and Director of Children’s Services. He explained that due to the complex structure of directorates at Kent County Council, he was responsible for any children’s services including those within the Education and Young People’s Services directorate. He reported that he had full accountability for Kent’s 1300 children in care and 700 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

Q – How does the elected Members’ responsibility differ from your responsibility for Corporate Parenting?

(3)          Andrew stated that he had direct accountability for Corporate Parenting with the Cabinet Member for Specialist Children's Services. He noted that there was a looser set of responsibilities on individual Members. Individual members were able to promote and take into account children in care through a variety of fora within the Council with the aim of enabling children in care to have the same outcomes as other children.

(4)          He noted that the Council was able to make special provisions for children in care such as prioritised school admissions. He argued that a specific proportion of Kent County Council apprenticeships could be allocated to care leavers to enhance their employment opportunities and life chances.

(5)          He stressed the importance of supporting older children in care in securing appropriate placements to meet their needs; facilitating easier access to the same services as other young people; enabling them to access the best schools; and ensuring the Pupil Premium is used to support their specific needs. He stated that there were too many examples in Kent County Council and other local authorities were this was not happening.

Q – Through your involvement with the Association of Directors of Children's Services, have you been able to identify best practice which could be implemented in Kent?

(6)          Andrew stated that he had recently been part of a peer review team evaluating another local authority’s children’s services and there were some very specific ideas that would be implemented in Kent as a result of participating in that review. He reported that Kent County Council had made significant strides since the 2010 Ofsted inspection which found services for children in care were inadequate: the numbers of adoptions had increased; there had been a reduction in the number of care proceedings; and there had been an improvement in the number of reviews being held within the set timeframe with increased multi-agency participation.

(7)          He noted two examples of best practice: ensuring greater choice in placements and improving educational outcomes for children in care. He praised the innovative work of Tony Doran in developing Virtual School Kent.

Q – How do we stop young people coming into care?

(8)          Andrew stated that there had been a reduction in over 100 children leaving care over the last year; this figure did not include unaccompanied asylum-seeking children where there had been an increase.

(9)          He reported that when Kent County Council was inspected in 2010 there were a large number of unassessed cases which may have resulted in avoidable admissions into local authority care if they had been responded to more rapidly. He stated that since 2010 there had been an increase in the number of adoptions and there had been a stable number of referrals and children on Child Protections plans. He explained that children were no longer staying on Child Protection plans for long periods of time; if there was no sign of improvement on the plan, Kent County Council would begin legal proceeding as part of the Public Law Outline (PLO).

(10)       He stated that the overall management had stabilised even in Thanet which was the area of highest demand and pressure. He noted that his biggest area of concern was young people, over the age of 14 (particularly over the age of 16), coming into care as the outcome was unlikely to be positive. He explained that intensive range of resources and interventions were required, at a point of crisis, to avoid admission into care. He reported that these young people were often disconnected with education and had become alienated from other services. He noted the importance of having access to additional services such as CAMHS which had been widely debated in many of Kent County Council’s committees.

(11)       He reported that Kent County Council had not been helped by the Southwark judgement and the separate views, on 16 and 17 year olds who had become homeless, by Kent’s 12 district councils. He noted that some districts were more willing to engage with Kent County Council than others. He stated that from his experiences of working in both unitary and two-tier authorities, there had been much better communication in unitary authorities.

Q – Has there been an increase in children in care being excluded from academies?

(12)       Andrew stated that he was not aware of a disproportionate number of exclusions of children in care from academies in comparison to local authority schools. He explained that it would be a useful question to put to Mr Doran.

Q – What was the Southwark judgement?

(13)       Andrew stated that the Southwark judgment was a case involving Southwark Council in which the judge ruled that 16 and 17 year olds who are homeless must be provided with accommodation and support by children’s services. He explained that in reality, homeless 16 and 17 year olds were unwilling to submit themselves to the local authority as they were trying to escape from family life and did not want to be placed with a substitute family. 

(14)       He reported that Kent County Council was looking to develop a package of support for these young people to enable them to propel themselves forward and have a sensible version of independence. He noted that some of these young people were very vulnerable and it was appropriate for them to remain in a care environment.  He stated that Kent County Council was working with the district councils to provide accommodation as part of the package of support but noted that some districts were much less willing to engage.

Q – Do district councils’ have corporate parenting responsibility too?

(15)       Andrew stated that arguably all public services had corporate parenting responsibility but explained that the duty sat with upper tier authorities with caring responsibilities. He noted that it was easier for unitary authorities to manage, as all the different services including housing and children’ services were part of the authority. He reported that any change to the statutory duty would require an amendment to government legislation.

Q – How well are elected Members and Officers carrying out their corporate parenting duty?

(16)       Andrew stated that a core group of Members were very committed and involved in corporate parenting. He noted that with a large number of new Members following the last election, further awareness of the corporate parenting duty was required. He reported that Officers outside of Children’s Services did not consider corporate parenting as part of their role and responsibility.

Q – What can be done to address this issue?

(17)       Andrew stated that there needed to be a continual process of awareness raising to both elected Members and Officers. He noted that the Local Government Association was developing a piece of work on supporting Members to carry out their corporate parenting responsibility. He explained the importance of raising the profile of corporate parenting in a way that did not put off Members becoming involved. He gave an example of a positive outcome of corporate parenting: Members’ contributions could lead to improved life chances for a young person who had a difficult background by diverting them away from an inevitable consequence of entering the youth justice system. He added that young people, who came into care late and entered the youth justice system, did not enter the system as a result of being in care; it was due to their difficult and challenging background.

Q – Are Members allowed to visit care homes?

(18)       Andrew explained that there were no Kent County Council care homes so there was no visiting regime. He noted that there were young people placed in independent residential care homes.

Q – What could Members do to improve the lives of children in care?

(19)       Andrew stated that it was important, as an authority, to more consistently and effectively listen to children in care in order to hear about their experiences and make improvements to issues raised such as placements, education and leaving care opportunities.

Q – One of the apprentices who attended Corporate Parenting Panel in February said it was difficult for a placement to be found for them whilst completing their apprenticeship. What can be done to improve this situation?

(20)       Andrew stated that there had been significant recent changes for children in care. He explained that local authorities traditionally worked on a 16+ model. At the age of 16, they moved to a Leaving Care team and worked with a new social worker. He reported that there had been a change in legislation which entitled children in care to stay in their placement beyond the age of 18. He noted that, following the 2013 Ofsted inspection, it was clear that the independent provider of 16+ children’s services was not up to standard. He reported that Kent County Council is now responsible for the casework of 16+ children’s services and the independent provider is only an accommodation supplier. He stated that he hoped the introduction of an 18+ model would bring real improvements. He noted that asylum services were included in 18+ model to improve the quality of the work.

Q – Can Kent County Council require local authorities, who place children in Out of County Placements in Kent, to commission sufficient placements within their own areas?

(21)       Andrew stated that Kent County Council had lobbied for many years to make the 20 miles guidance a regulation. The Council had the ear of previous Children’s Ministers but they did not have the same traction with the current minister. He noted that there had not been a dramatic change to the overall pattern of Out of County Placements. He reported that Out of County Placements frequently reflected poor practice; they often lacked the appropriate package for the child including schooling. He stressed the need for district planning authorities being able to prevent or limit the number of independent children’s homes being located in their area. He expressed his frustration in Out of County Placements not being reported in the Ofsted reports of local authorities who had high numbers of these types of placements.

Q – What else can Kent County Council do about Out of County Placements?

(22)       Andrew stated that he had written to the Department of Education about Out of County Placements. He noted that whatever the nature of the incoming government, following the 2015 General Election, there was an opportunity to start the lobbying process again with the new Children’s Minister.

Q – Can Kent County Council raise a challenge to those authorities who knowingly place children in Out of County Placements in Kent?

(23)       Andrew stated that Kent County Council had an opportunity to report to local authorities, on a case by case basis, when failings to provide a suitable placement to meet the need of the child were identified. He reported that Out of County Placements in Kent had a wider impact on other agencies such as the Police and Health Service. He noted that Kent County Council cannot formally hold other local authorities to account.  He explained that local authorities were required to provide Kent County Council with a notification of an Out of County Placement in Kent when the child arrives and departs. He reported that some authorities do not routinely inform children’s services of Out of County Placements in Kent.