Agenda item

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

The Committee received an update of children in care National indicators and outcomes for 2010 together with targets for 2010/11 and other key performance information as at the end of July 10. The committee were asked to note that comparative data for 2009/10 would be published  in the Autumn and  with this  in mind there would also follow, to the next meeting,   information on the  full profile of regulated  services provided to children in the borough.

It was noted that there had been an increase to 621 children in care  as of 31 July 2010. Members noted that 33 children had become looked after and 18 children had  ceased to be looked after during July. Details of the number of care proceedings initiated both during July and over the previous 12 months was reported . The committee noted that there  had been  a 25% increase in care proceedings in Haringey  compared to this time last year. Although the national average of children in care had risen by 17% it was noted that the figure had risen by a greater amount in Haringey. Officers verbally reported that the numbers of looked after children had stabilized in August and September. The committee sought information on the timescales for court care  proceedings and asked whether the number of siblings involved had an impact on the length of the proceedings. Officers advised that in theory the number of siblings involved should not be a factor however there could be issues such as locating special guardian’s. There was an increasing concern about  delays in care proceedings and the Director of Children Services was seeking to initiate a meeting with the judiciary to discuss this urgent matter further. The Chair advised  officers of the need  collate information and data on delayed care proceedings in  readiness for any possible  Pan London investigation on this matter.

Details of the age and ethnic breakdown of placements across boroughs were noted.  The committee requested  that a further comparison  be made between the ethnic group numbers of LAC  against the ethnic breakdown of the borough  to  understand any possible correlations. Also, when considering the age ranges of LAC, it would be useful for the committee to understand the number of  children entering these categories that  were newly located in the borough. Officers provided information to the committee on the procedures followed for children with care plans moving to the borough with assurances given of the careful scrutiny given to care plans. The committee noted that previous assessments are reinitiated should the Social Worker feel that there is inadequate information provided. Discussion and information further followed on the knowledge the local authority has of children moving into the borough and what the usual channels are for receiving this information. The committee noted that only  children which have come into contact with other boroughs children’s services will be known to services when relocating.

The committee sought further assurances about the welfare of LAC when placing them outside of the borough. Officers advised the committee that when placing children in outside borough residential settings, the homes chosen were either rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted.  Upon  request committee members could be supplied with details of the  commonly  used homes in order to access Ofsted reports.  Further clarification was sought on  the stability  of outside borough  placements   with  responses provided by officers on the following:

• the numbers of LAC placed outside the borough,

• the types of placements i.e. residential or foster care available,
• the level of contact being made with LAC located outside the borough,
•  how outside borough residential settings are chosen for LAC,
• the reasons for placing  the children out of the borough,
• length of placements and reasons for some placements being more stable and successful than others.

The committee requested that  the next  performance report includes more detailed  information on out of borough placements taking into account the above points discussed   and  provides a breakdown of the data on the stability  and long term stability (N163)of placements for children in care . Information should  also be included  on the type of cases encountered,  and whether court proceedings  delays are  also having an impact.

The committee sought information and assurances on the procedures and guidance followed for children termed as “missing” from either a residential setting or foster care setting.  The committee learned that placement teams in boroughs were notified of significant incidents where LAC are involved.  Officers in  Haringey Children’s services  ensured that protocols  for missing children were understood by residential homes both inside and outside of the borough.  The committee were pleased to note that the attendance of LAC children at school was tracked on a daily basis as this  was a speedy way of signalling to the local authority any immediate absences and also highlighting any possible  issues  if a child has variable attendance at school.

The committee discussed adoption and special guardianship orders as part of NI61. Information was provided on special guardianship and adoption targets.

As agreed, at the previous meeting, an update was provided on foster care recruitment and  this would continue to be reported upon  in the performance report.  The committee noted that the service had been restructured  with the recruitment team now separated to deal solely with the  recruitment of foster carers. Officers spoke of  the necessity of providing a good customer service to potential foster carers as this  made the difference in their recruitment .  The services was improved and Members of the committee were welcome to  assess the service provided if they wished . The Chair enquired about what work was being done with other local authorities to jointly source foster carers as realistically  the local authority and  neighbouring boroughs were all targeting  the same potential foster  carers.  Officers reported  that  there was some early work being completed with four other north London boroughs on: pooling and sharing foster carers services ,  negotiating costs of IFA foster carers (as different boroughs paid different rates for the foster carers used) training of staff and foster carers .  The committee reiterated the need to continue speedily  with the work of developing this consortium as it would enable a better  and cost effective service to be achieved . The Chair asked to be informed of any high level issues and offered to speak with  relevant counterparts, at the 4 north London  boroughs,  to hasten  and resolve issues when required.

The Committee were interested in  finding out what percentage of enquires, for foster caring,  were  received from the west of the borough and also suggested that  recruitment leaflets on foster caring could be distributed at  the next Muswell  Hill and Crouch End Area Assembly meetings. The committee also recommended that officers find out the dates of up and coming area assembly meetings,  in the west of the borough, so as  to seek agreement from area assembly chairs to  include leaflets on fostering at these meetings. 

RESOLVED:

1. That the report be noted.

2.   That the performance report includes information on the full profile of regulated  services provided to children in the borough.

3.    That the performance report provides information on out of borough placements as per the committee’s discussion  and  provides a breakdown of the data on the stability  and long term stability (N163)of placements for children in care.

4. The committee agreed that the performance report further contain  comparisons between the ethnic group numbers of LAC against the ethnic breakdown of the borough.  That the report further add details of number of  children entering the age range categories of LAC to understand if they are newly located in the borough.