Agenda and minutes

 Apologies for absence were received from  Wendy Tomlinson, Head of Commissioning  and Placements.

The Chair will consider the admission of late items of urgent business. Late items will be considered under the agenda item they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 11 below.

 There were no items of urgent business put forward.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the consideration becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’ judgement of the public interest.  

 There were no declarations of interest put forward.

To consider the minutes of the Corporate Parenting meeting held on the 11 October 2011 and the Joint meeting between Corporate Parenting and The Children’s Safeguarding policy and Practice Committee also held on the 11^th October 2011.

The minutes of the  Corporate Parenting meeting held on the 11^th October  2011 were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting.

The minutes of the  joint meeting between Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee and Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee held on the 11^th October were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting.

Members of the Committee had been sent a briefing on the  outcomes  of fostering   week publicity activities  undertaken  in June .  There was separate  tables   both showing   different figures  for enquiries into fostering  and the number of people attending an information session on fostering  for the same  month.  The Head of Commissioning and Placements  would provide an  explanation of  the difference between these figures to the committee by email following her return from leave.

The Committee will receive a presentation from Barnardo’s about their work with the Council on Children’s rights, Sexual exploitation and Miss U(missing from care missing from home).Gloria Stott , manager of the north London Sexual Exploitation and Missing Service , and Babette Bleach , who manages the London Children’s Rights Services will provide this presentation.

The Committee received a presentation from Gloria Stott and Babette Bleach of  Barnardo’s about their work with the Council on children’s rights, sexual exploitation and trafficking. Barnardos had been working, contractually with the Council since 1995 until 2011 on these areas of work . At the start of this financial year  they had entered into a spot purchasing arrangement with the council to provide an advocacy service to identified children , undertake independent visits to children’s homes and work with young people who had been identified by the council as being vulnerable to trafficking, and sexual exploitation.  Recently external funding had also secured the services of a practitioner from the Barnardo’s to work  in the Safeguarding service with missing children, 2 days a week.

Although the Children’s service  had block commissioned 6 places this did not limit them procuring  further places if the need arose. On an influential level, Barnardos’ was educating the  Safeguarding service about  the circumstances that can  put a child /young person at risk of sexual exploitation. Barnardo’s also  shared intelligence about potential cases of sexual exploitation  and worked with the services when cases were identified by them. Barnardos also offered a child /young person an alternative support provision separate to the local agencies that they were required to deal with.

 The Committee further considered information about the Children’s Rights services provided by Barnardo’s. The Advocacy service had started  as a short term project and had been  expanded in the last three years. This had  culminated in a contract between the Council and Barnardo’s to provide advocacy support services to 87 young people. This support from Barnardos was about  enabling children / young people  to provide their views on their care  and feel independent of the process .

 Barnardos also provided  independent visits  to the Council’s children’s residential  homes and   were contracted to support 10 young people living  at these homes. Members were reassured that there was a separate non statutory body that could  make visits to the  homes and speak with  the young people at the home.

 A question was asked about how issues raised by young people through advocacy services were taken forward with the Council. In particular concerns about independent living arrangements, The Committee noted that there were regular monitoring meetings held between the Children’s service and   Barnardo’s where each party provided an update on all the cases that they are working on.   As part of this working relationship with the council,  Barnardo’s felt able to raise the  individual issues of children/young people  as well as be influential in the types of services provided to them. In the unlikely event that they found  their views not taken on board by the Children’s Safeguarding service, Barnardo’s representatives  were aware that  they could advance   their concerns to a higher management level.

Members were interested in how the  service decided on the children that would access the services provided by Barnardo’s . This  information was sought  to be assured, as corporate parents, that  there was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

To consider key performance data concerning  looked after children as at the end  of October 2011.

Members of the Committee were asked to comment on and consider a new format for  the  regular performance report  which contained a set of key indicators . In future, more detailed analysis or data queries were proposed to be considered and reported through separate exception reports.

Comment was made on the cost of service  per looked after child.  The figure of £854 was the weekly cost and  included overheads.  Members asked that a benchmark figure also be included to provide Members with a comparison. The Committee were advised of the difficulty in providing benchmark figures as local authorities  all had dissimilar ways   of calculating the cost of LAC. However,  there was ongoing work with the NLSA (North London Strategic Alliance)  to compile one category  of cost, for looked after children, which would be followed by all of the 6 North  London boroughs in the NLSA   and would therefore provide ready benchmarking figures .

 Item 3 – Foster Care Recruitment   - The Committee recommended that  the background to the  foster carer that was recruited be added ie if they were family or friend.

 Item 6  - Percentage of referrals to children’s social  care going onto initial assessment  - Agreed that  the correct  figure  for  August 2010/11  be distributed to the Committee.

 Members discussed the increase in the number of referrals resulting in an initial assessment and  sought understanding  about the reasons for the increase in this  number  over  a two year period.  The Committee were advised that these numbers of referrals were post  examination by the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub(MASH) therefore these referrals  would not all culminate in child protection plans. This information was included to help the service’s understand the pathways into care. The Committee concluded  that the information provided needed to be more clearer on the number of  children that had moved from an   initial assessment to a Child Protection Plan and the timeline of this.

It was agreed that  overall the comments section of the table provide more detail  on the context around  the indicators  as a public document.  

There was consensus that performance figures relating to Looked after Children were in the remit and responsibility of this Committee.  Performance indicators containing information about referrals which do not lead to child protection plan or  a child becoming looked after was the responsibility of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee  and should be separated out of the report  .  Having accepted this,  there was still felt to be a  need for  the committee  to have a better understanding of the information being considered by the  Children’s Safeguarding  Policy and Practice Committee .

Item 23  -Children in Care for a month or more with an up to date health assessment   . Statistical averages for this indicator would be available in the following months report. Agreed that the target  of 75%  be added   to  the latter column.

RESOLVED

1. The  format of the report  be  agreed .

2. That the comments provided above by Committee Members be factored in the  forthcoming report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

The committee will consider the  permanency strategy  which addresses all aspects of permanency planning for children and young people. Priority is given to children remaining, wherever possible within their own birth families. Where this is not possible there are a range of options to consider, from legal permanence in the form of achieving adoption, special guardianship or residence orders to long term fostering with or without a care order. To be tabled at the meeting.

 The Committee considered a tabled paper outlining the developing Permanency strategy. The Chair asked that in future briefings were not tabled at the meeting but distributed to members prior to the meeting with the despatch of papers.

The paper contained some early headlines of the information to be included in the strategy.  The strategy would address the key issues which impact on permanency, set out the options for permanency such as special guardianship orders, adoption and residential care, and the circumstances where these options will be considered.  The strategy would also contain details about planning for permanency and the set of procedures to inform permanency planning and prevent drift which is caused by the unintended sequential planning for securing a permanent family for a child. Instead there will be parallel planning to enable a secondary plan for a permanent placement to be implemented should the initial intended placement plan not be workable. 

Workshop sessions with staff were planned with the release of the strategy to reiterate its key messages and ensure that permanency planning was embedded in the work of the service.

The Chair recommended adding a vision at the start of the   strategy which would advise on the best outcomes for children.  The Committee were assured that this was already intended and would be included in the strategy which was to be considered by the Committee at their next meeting on the 31 January 2012.

Members sought information on the remit of the Transformation Board and whether the driver for this strategy had arisen from their observations. The Committee noted that this was an internal officer board which contained external representatives that were assigned to consider and provide a critical challenge to the   budget issues being faced by the Children’s service.  Although the permanency plan fitted in with the strategic improvement plan of the service it was good practice to have this strategy in place. It was noted that the strategic improvement plan could be considered by the Committee at future meetings.

The Committee were assured that permanency planning was not a new practice for the service and the strategy would be highlighting how the service would be changing the existing practice of sequentially planning   to parallel planning.

Comment was made on the need to follow the corporate format for strategies when compiling the strategy. 

 RESOLVED

1. That the briefing be emailed to Committee Members to provide further comments to the Head of Children in Care.

2. That the draft Permanency strategy be considered by the Committee at their meeting on the 31 January 2011.

To consider the findings of a basic checklist audit into  looked after children reviews  undertaken by the Independent Review Officers.

The Independent Review  Officers had used a basic  checklist to carry out a random sample analysis  of looked after children reviews.  The  audit was designed as   quick process  that could provide some immediate data and create a benchmark for future audits .  At the time of the audit there had been vacant IRO posts which were now in the process of being filled therefore  in future there would be more capacity to compile a more  sophisticated audit which would highlight any underlying issues that needed attention and resolution in the children’s service.

 The  IRO officer  spoke of the positive findings from the audit which were the   rate  that decisions  from the  LAC review were implemented and  ensuring that a children were  included and  prepared for their LAC review.  The areas to be further investigated by the IRO officers  were  the  number of social work reports not available  and total  number of care plans available for inspections These findings were  being  discussed with children’s service  and  the IRO’s recognised that  there was a need to be more rigorous in identifying and reporting  where a care plan or social work report had not been found. The increase in IRO officers would assist with this .

Regarding the number of   total care plans available, Members were assured that the figure reported did not mean that  no care plan was in place. There were  either  legal care plans or draft  care plans in place which had not formally been  drafted.The Committee were further advised that there would be recommendations  coming forward from the IRO officers about the  implementation of care plans for Social  workers to follow.  The Committee suggested alternative ways of looking at the data concerning  LAC reviews such as examining the  timescale of  when the care plans are being completed within.  The Committee learned that the IRO’s had completed a further audit  on the care of LAC  examining cases in September ,October, November  which would be reported back to the Committee in the new year.

The Committee were informed that the  Quality Assurance and  Practice Development service had been in place since June and  its role was to provide independent scrutiny  on the systems and process  in place for  the care of children.  The service were  working  on a  quality assurance  framework  and a report on this development work  focused on  Looked after Children could be considered by the Committee at their January meeting.

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of items ### as they contain exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985): paras 1 & 2: namely information relating to any individual, and information likely to reveal the identity of an individual.   

The press and public were excluded from the meeting for consideration of Item 11 as it contained exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985): paras 1 & 2: namely information relating to any individual, and information likely to reveal the identity of an individual.  

The Committee will  receive details of Regulation 33 inspections made to Haringey’s residential homes.

 Members considered the findings of recent regulation 33 visits to the Council’s Children’s Homes and noted the recommendations arising from these visits and the actions being  taken forward.

Previously Members of the Committee had raised concerns about the understanding key workers had at the children’s  homes of the use and importance of the SAM codes. This code  was allocated to each  young person  in the home in order  to  help them access online learning systems.  Key workers were expected to know the importance of these codes and be able to assist the young person in using them. It was agreed that  the  Haringey  Virtual School Head,  when making her regular visits to the  children’s residential  homes,  discuss  the current  use of the SAM codes and further  gage the  key workers understanding of them.

 Members referred to a recommendation relating to the use of the Framework  I system by staff at the children’s homes and recalled a previous explanation that agency staff were not permitted to add information to the system.  It was noted that where agency staff have been working at the home for long period of time  or are regularly called upon to assist in the home, they should have access to the system to add case notes.  Agreed that the Head of Safeguarding, Quality Assurance & Practice Development seek a resolution to this recommendation and report back the outcome in the matters arising report to be considered by the Committee at their January meeting.

 A visit to a home in  October reported on shortness of a visit due to disruptive behaviour. The Committee asked that further details be provided on the  nature of the disruption to provide understanding on reasons for the visit being  brief.

Date of next meeting: 31 January 2012

Next joint meeting with Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee 05 March 2012 7.00pm, Council Chamber.