Agenda item

(1)               The members had a brief discussion regarding how to progress with their recommendations; consideration being given to the benefits an extension of the Select Committee versus the need to ensure the recommendations could be actioned as soon as possible.  Members agreed to discuss this further on the 24^th when they would be reviewing all their recommendations.

(2)               The Chairman welcomed Philip to the meeting and requested that all Members and Officers introduce themselves. 

(3)               Philip stated that he was currently the Acting Director of Specialist Children’s Services, having worked for thirty three years in Child services, including eight years as a consultant to poorly performing authorities.  His most recent posting prior to joining KCC was in the Acting Director role at North Kent.  At KCC, his responsibilities included all specialist children’s services, 1500 members of staff and a budget of £128m.  The range of services included foster carers, CAMHS, Early Help and Preventative Services, Safeguarding.

Q – What should Members do to be good corporate parents?

(4)               Philip stated that the main role for Member in this area was asking difficult questions of relevant officers to make sure they are aware of the issues.  This meant that Members needed access to accurate and regular information updates on a broad range of issues that affected the relevant young people, including health, education and criminal justice among others.  To keep Members informed, Officers must be able to articulate issues in a manner that will be accessible, ensuring that the information is passed on effectively.

Q – How is this information flow currently achieved?

(5)               Philip explained that the Corporate Parenting Panel was the formal body that oversaw the significant issues in this arena and was responsible for holding Officers to account.  Beneath the Panel sat the Corporate Parenting Group which was Chaired by Martin Vye.  This Group was responsible for examining the broader partnerships, not just the work of Specialist Children’s Services but also how work undertaken by the Health and Housing services impacted on young people.  Philip stated that this Group contributed to the holistic approach required to consider all the factors that were important in the care of young people and were therefore relevant to Members as Corporate Parents.  Supporting these considerations was a performance framework that provided a structure for assessing how the authority was managing key issues.  A new Councillor score-sheet had been introduced at the request of Members to improve their capacity to effectively assess performance.  This process also includes consideration of adoption outcomes.

(6)               Philip explained that he regularly met with the Lead Member in relation to Specialist Children’s Services and advised that Members were welcome to raise specific issues as required with him or his team.

Q – What is working well and what is not?

(7)               Philip explained that there varying issues from both internal and external sources.  Externally, there have been complications due to the fact that the District Councils and the Housing Associations manage the housing of relevant people, which makes it more difficult for KCC to make changes.  Priorities for improvement in this area were post 16 housing and developing a more consistent approach as different areas used different processes.  Social Care housing processes and rules were in need of a further review.  Another area that required improvement externally was the level of support for Education employment for young people.  At present, Kent has poor outcomes in this regard and more work was needed internally and externally to improve this – one concern raised by Philip  was that a recent KCC report on Skills & Employment made no mention of young people leaving care.

(8)               In terms of internal improvements needed, Philip highlighted the need for greater consistency in social worker staffing.  The current inconsistency had resulted in disruption to families and young people in care.  While some change was inevitable, both in terms of changing needs for the client requiring workers with different expertise and the simple fact of organisational or staffing shifts, it was hoped that a more stable work force would prevent unnecessary disruption and more needed to be done to mitigate this as an identified issue.  Linked with this was that any changes that have taken place have not always been well managed, resulting in further disruption that could have been avoided with a managed process that could be generally applied to such situations.  Another issue was that KCC’s Fostering resource would benefit from greater depth in terms of skills and experience, as well as a broader demography.  Linked to this was Philip ’s opinion that the current workloads of Fostering social workers were too high, meaning that when any crisis cases arise there is little flexibility in the system to cope with the additional pressure.  Philip was of the opinion that the Fostering service required a strategic review with the aim of improving stability of the service.

Q – What is being done to address these issues?

(9)               Philip explained that an action plan is currently in place and that a Sufficiency Strategic document had been drafted as KCC’s existing strategy needed updating to reflect current pressures.  This work included extensive consideration of future projects in terms of feasibility and prioritising, modelling of future demand and capacity for the Adoption service.  It was important, according to Philip , that consideration was given to the fact that while the simple figures made it appear that the system should be able to cope, the complexities involved in each case meant that this was not necessarily true.  He gave the example that with an identified demand for 1800 places when there should be 1900 available suggested that there was no problem but the figures did not take into account the particular needs of the young people and level of relevant skills or experience available to manage them.  This meant that understanding the practical application of the current resources was the key to assessing the real world capacity of the authority to manage the issues.  Steps being taken to address these practical gaps, included targeted recruitment both in terms of geography and demography for Foster carers.  West Kent has historically been challenging as there has consistently been a shortage there compared to other part of the County and previous recruitment work has been unsuccessful. 

Q – What is being done to address issues around supported lodging where District Councils do not own or control Housing provision and how can KCC work effectively with Housing Associations in light of the growing issue of youth homelessness?

(10)           Philip agreed that the wider issue of youth homelessness had to be considered when looking into housing provision.  He stated that £3.5m of KCC funding was put forward to support the development of better housing provision processes.  This money was previously based in Community Services but was now being focused at this particular area of need.  Philip stated that in his opinion the whole process of youth accommodation should be re-commissioned.  There were currently serious issues such as 16 or 17 year olds presenting as homeless which was the responsibility of Social Services which placed significant pressure to source urgent accommodation.  Again it was noted that there was a lack of consistency around emergency accommodation, for example Dartford YMCA has been very supportive and has assisted KCC in this regard but this relationship has not been echoed around the County with similar venues or services.  If this model of co-operation could be spread across the County, it would be very beneficial to KCC, providing greater flexibility with supported transition for young people working towards leaving care.

Q – How can KCC address Looked After Children’s concerns that permission is still required from KCC for taking part in ‘normal activities’ due to a lack of delegated authority?

(11)           Philip explained that the Government published specific guidance on this issue in 2010 which commented that there were too many constraints of young people in care and that being in care should not limit opportunities.  This is addressed in the placement plan created for each looked after child and each Foster carer should have agreed delegated authority for usual issues that would be dealt with by parents.  Philip stated that if this was a significant issue amongst looked after children, it meant that KCC’s policies and procedures were not being followed and that he would look into this.  In terms of specific issues that Members had raised such as delays in receiving passports or being prevented from visiting friends, Philip  did clarified that in some cases the looked after children had specific vulnerabilities which required more detailed consideration and management, just as would be case for a regular parent.  As KCC had responsibility for managing such matters it would sometimes have to weigh up the freedoms of the child against the risks.  It would not be uncommon for the affected children to resent these limitations but KCC felt that they were in their best interests.

Q – Why did Foster Carers sometimes need additional permissions from child’s birth parents?

(12)           Philip explained that there were different circumstance which resulted in a child being in foster care depending on whether it was a s20 order or a Care Order.  In some instances, where the fostering may be temporary for example, there would continue to be a requirement to consult birth parents on various issues.  Philip stated that foster carers were made aware of these requirements.

Q – What were the advantages and challenges of providing Mental Health therapy to looked after children?

(13)           Philip explained that the CAMHS service had received criticism and that there were gaps that needed to be addressed.  This was particularly true in that case of therapeutic support at a more acute level, addressing issues such as serious sexual trauma and other high level / complex needs cases.  This was provided on an ad hoc basis but consequently there was an inconsistent level of provision across the board.  This was further complicated by the variable level of support required on a case by case basis.  The more standard level of therapeutic support should be being provided, to some extent, by social workers but this relied on work force consistency.

Q – Would KCC consider adopting the Hackney model for Looked after Children?

(14)           Philip explained that Specialist Children’s Services has just finished working with consultancy group, Newton Europe, and had completed a ‘sandbox design’ phase.  This related to structural changes to the service with a focus on ensuring that assessment processes used appropriately and not unnecessarily repeated.  For instance, if a protection plan is needed for a child, under the current system this may result in further disruption through the child be referred to another specialist worker where the assessment process would start all over again.  The new plan involves planning for child care through joint teams that can share information and consider the complete service package required by the child.  This would replace the current practice of considering a child as either an ‘intake’ case (initial assessment with potential for short term) or ‘long term’.  Philip clarified that each family should only have one social worker to provide consistency but that there would still be some circumstances were additional support would be required depending variable needs and the complexity of some family circumstances.

Q – Why is it that some families have different social workers for their children, should there not be just one social worker per family?

(15)           Philip said that sometimes, due to the complex needs of a family it may be necessary to have more than one social worker involved, potentially due to the need for various types of expertise, if the various needs change over time or are identified later in the process.  However in these cases there should be one lead social worker co-ordinating the support.

Q – What was Philip’s view on the recent proposal by Integrated Youth Services to create Panel that would use Restorative Justice Processes for Looked After Children to prevent ‘unnecessary’ criminalisation, such as when carers report their foster children for ‘minor infractions’?

(16)           Philip explained that that the proposal was being considered and that he was in agreement that there should be processes in place that limit the criminalisation of young people.  He stated that Medway Council have adopted the proposed model and KCC was still working on how it could be implemented appropriately.  Philip did comment that some causal issues had been identified around this, such as the need for foster carers to have a crime reference number in order to claim for damage on their insurance.  These issues were being looked at presently.  Additionally, he stated that it was worth considering that in some cases there was a need for some young people to learn that there were negative consequences for unacceptable behaviour and that it might not always be appropriate to insulate them from such consequences.

Q – If it was accepted that the broader CAMHS service was not working, how can it be fixed?

(17)           Philip explained that the specification for the CAMHS contract was currently being reviewed and was going through consultation, with a view to addressing the issues that have been identified so far.  The contract was scheduled for renewal next year so an update on the new contracts and service specifications should be available for viewing within a few months.

Q – How can each individual improve their ability to be better corporate parents?

(18)           Philip advised that Members always keep their responsibility at the front of their minds, that they should always be considering what is best for Looked After Children and that they must also try to consider such things from the children’s perspective.  He advised that Specialist Children’s Services would take on board the recommendations from the Select Committee when they are released, in the hope that they improve Members’ capacity to be good corporate parents.  Philip  stated that he believed the key things required for Members to fulfil their corporate parenting responsibilities were access to better performance data that was presented in a manner that was accessible to them (information packs or local area briefings) and that a better participation strategy was required by the authority to assist in gathering better input from children for the consideration of both professionals and Members.  This would require more resources devoted to participation work but the process would also benefit from more informal Member engagement with young people.

(19)           The Chairman thanked Philip for attending and answering the Committee’s questions.