Agenda item

To update members of Children in Care National Indicators and other key performance information  at  the end of  September 2010.

The committee received information on children in care national indicators together with key performance information as at the end of September 2010. The report further provided details of performance outturns for 2010 and the targets for 2010/11.  The committee noted that the Government were undertaking a review of National Indicators and all statutory data returns and the committee would be kept informed of the changes agreed.

We noted that for the month of September, 23 children became looked after and 22 children had ceased to be looked after.   The number of care proceedings initiated in September 2010 was noted to be lower in comparison to September 09 figures. This indicated that early intervention practices were beginning to have an impact.

Information was provided on neighbour comparator boroughs and the numbers of children in care. Haringey’s number of children in care was higher in comparison to statistical counterparts but the numbers were felt to be stabilizing.  It was important to note, when considering the lower number of LAC reported for both Hackney and Waltham Forest, that these boroughs had larger budgets for their children’s service. Hackney Council had focused the majority of their budget and organisation of their service on early invention.  The committee noted that it was too early to forecast whether this strategy was successful but agreed that it would be useful to receive a presentation from Hackney Council, at a future meeting, on the focussed work of the children’s service into early intervention to enable a view to be reached on its benefits and drawbacks. Further factors to note, when considering the figures of LAC in comparator boroughs, were; the level of thresholds adhered to by each borough, whether practices followed could be considered above scrutiny and whether the different strategies followed, to reduce the number of children in care,  were suitable for  use in Haringey. The committee learned about the work being completed by Waltham Forest on performance and asked if there was an opportunity for taking part in a cross borough initiative on service delivery.

The Council had 20 children placed in care as a result of the Southwark Judgement (16/17 year olds declared as homeless). The committee were interested in finding out about: the case history of these children, whether they had been in past contact with services i.e. through the CAF process, if they had any siblings and their ages, if there were any other young members in their family, which part of the borough they had previously been located, their schooling history and if there were gang related issues involved.  Analysis of this information would improve the Council’s learning about when, where, and how these children could have been identified and supported at an earlier stage.  Officers responded and agreed that there was now significant statistical information available on this group of young people to allow an analytical report to be devised and be put forward to committee addressing the above points. In considering this issue it was important to note the successful work of the Housing service in trying to get these young people home.

Ethnic breakdown of children in care was provided and compared to the population census to provide a further understanding of the proportion of children in care according to their ethnicity and whether this correlated to the census figures. The committee noted the over representation of Black and   Mixed Race children with White European children also at a disadvantage and asked how this was factored by services. Examples given were the EIA process which enables services to assess the effects of a key policy, strategy or existing service function may have on people depending on their ethnicity, disability, gender, age, religion and belief or sexual orientation and there were various community projects involving the voluntary sector which targeted support to young people and parents in the Black, Kurdish and Turkish communities.  Members further questioned the ethnicity categories used in the report which, were quite broad and could encompass a number of different ethnic backgrounds in the borough and asked how information was disseminated.  The committee learned that information on ethnicity from the census was interrogated to understand and meet the needs of the local population. Information on the ethnicity of children, supported by the C&YP service, was also provided to the DFE on a monthly basis so that, nationally, an understanding was built on the ethnicity of children most in need.   The committee acknowledged the added complexities of deprivation, low aspiration, and social interaction in gangs which cut across ethnicity and was being factored by children’ services and external agencies.

It was further  reported that the largest proportion of children looked after were within the 10-15 age bracket and Members were informed of the age group of referrals in Haringey in comparison to the national average. Members were advised that the C&YP service would be undertaking analysis of this cohort of older children coming into care, as part of work on sufficiency, with findings to be reported to a later meeting of this committee.

The committee considered the stability of placements of children in care and noted that 70% of children were placed outside of Haringey borough. A breakdown of placement types was provided to committee members. The highest number were placed with a foster carer and a significant majority of children looked after, for more than 2 years, were in out of borough placements. Members noted that 86% of children in care had received visits in their placements. The committee were assured that this was a good figure and scheduled visits were adhered to with postponements only made when there were extenuating circumstances involved. The committee learned that the Assistant Director for Children’s services was completing investigatory exercise into children who had been subject to 3 placement moves. Analysis would be completed to understand the circumstances around the moves and what could have been done differently.  The committee were further advised of the robust placement procedure in place which had checks in place to ensure that the carer and child were sufficiently supported and expectations about a placement set out at the start. These checks were designed to help ensure decisions made on placements were sustainable. The committee noted the typical difficult issues faced with placements such as: placing siblings together, dealing with parental interference, inexperienced carers, and housing issues. The committee agreed that a broader understanding was required by them on the location of placements termed as outside to the borough. The committee requested that a map is compiled with information on the location of all children in care  placed outside of the borough by the Council and children in care  placed in the borough by outside boroughs.

The committee received an update on the continuing work to increase the number of in house foster carers. The committee noted that the placement service was continuing to build good relationships with agencies in order to increase placement options. A working agreement was being reached with the 4 North London boroughs of Barnet, Islington, Enfield, Camden, which was a result of this.

The committee noted that 10 children had been adopted in the year to date which correlated with comparator borough figures and there was also an increase in the number of special guardianship orders being completed.

RESOLVED

1. That a report on the children placed in the care of the Council, as part of the Southwark Judgement, be considered by the committee at their next meeting on the 24 January 2011.

2. That a map is compiled together with information on the location of all children in care  placed outside of the borough by the Council and children in care  placed in the borough by outside boroughs for consideration by the committee on 24 January 2011.

3. That the report be noted.