Agenda item

Performance Management

To consider a performance report on measures relating to Looked After Children including highlights and key messages identifying areas of improvement and focus.

Minutes:

RECEIVED the report on Performance for the Year to the end of May 2016. Report included in the agenda pack (pages 15 to 21). 

 

NOTED in response to discussion:

 

  • An overall improving trajectory in relation to the majority of performance indicators.
  • 431 children were in careon the last day of May 2016 or 73 per 10,000 population including 30 unaccompanied asylum seeker children. There had been a gradual increase in the level of children in care in comparison to the position at the end of March 2016, with 22 more children in care. However a reduction in Haringey’s rate of looked after children in 2015/16 placed LBH within the inter-quartile range of our statistical neighbours (a rate of 69 per 10,000 population), although the current rate remained above the London (52) and national average (60) rates.

 

  • A performance review system put in place by the Head of Service for Children in Care in October 2015 yielded some excellent performance improvements. Weekly meetings with Team Managers run by the Head of Service and facilitated by a representative from performance were continuing and focused on new improvement challenges.

 

  • As of the end of June: 85% of school aged children had completed an up to date Personal Education Plans (PEP); 96% of looked after children aged 16-17 had up to date Pathway Plans; and 95% had completed an up to date Care Plan. Performance had improved dramatically in this area over the past 12 months. 

 

  • 94% of Children in Care had an up to date review at the end of May above the 90% target.

 

  • At the end of May, 96% (382 out of 402) of children in care for over a month had an up to date health assessment, above target and continuing the positive trend. We are also now tracking 18 year olds leaving care that receive their health history and the position at the end of May was 78% for that indicator.

 

  • 17 (7%) of looked after children (aged 10 and over) were convicted or subject to a final warning during the year 2015/16, a reduction and improvement on our 2014/15 position of 8.4% and significant improvement on the 11% for 2013/14.  This remained higher than the latest published England average rate of 5% but was in line with our statistical neighbour average of 6.9%.

 

  • Data for the period April 2015 to March 2016 revealed that the average duration of care proceedings for concluded cases was 34 weeks, the same duration as that recorded for 2014/15. 45% of cases were concluded in less than the 26 week statutory timescale, an improvement on the 34% achieved in 2014/15 with the shortest average case length of 29 weeks in quarter 4.

 

  • 95 children or 24% were placed 20 miles or more from Haringey at the end of May 2016, an additional 19 children since the position at end of January 2016 although the number of looked after children also increased over the same period. Performance was worse than the 16% target and provisional March 2016 end of year position (23%). Although higher than national levels this proportion is only slightly above the average for London and our Statistical Neighbours (18%).

 

  • Provisional data for the end of year looked after children government return shows that 82% or 254 children who were in care for over 12 months had their teeth checked by a dentist. This is a decline on the reported level of 91.5% in 2014/15 but close to our statistical neighbour position of 85.4%. Focussed effort to ensure all children in care for over 12 months with an outstanding dental check is on-going to see if we can capture any additional children who have had their teeth checked maybe as part of their health assessment.

 

 

  • Performance on care leavers in suitable accommodation and in education, employment and training for 2015-16 was below levels achieved in 2014-15. However, like for like comparison cannot be made, as the SSDA903 OC3 cohort previously included former relevant care leavers whose 19th, 20th or 21st birthday fell in the reporting year. Provisional data currently showed 39% of all former relevant care leavers aged 17-21 were in EET (56% of those who were in touch with the local authority around their 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st birthday). 60% of all care leavers were in suitable accommodation or 87% of those who were in touch. 

 

  • Children missing numbers have been relatively stable in 2015/16 but more recently the children missing from care numbers have been showing an increasing trend. In May, 22 children were recorded as missing from care at any point during the month. 20 children were away from placement without authorisation.

 

  • The SSDA903 data for 2015-16 also showed an increase of children missing from care (72 children in comparison to 45 in 2014-15). There were 237 missing/away from placement episodes compared to 90 in 2014/15. This figure was closer to our 2014-15 statistical neighbour average of 252 missing/away episodes. Some of this increase may be attributable to improved systems for recording data on missing children and real time tracking of children who went missing using a register.

 

  • There has been a 30% reduction in Haringey’s rate of looked after children since 2011 compared with a 10% reduction in London and a 3% increase nationally. The graphs below shows the 7 year trend to March 2016 in comparison with the number and rate of our statistical neighbours. Since the end of March there has been a net increase of 16 children coming into care (6%) but Haringey’s rate of looked after children is not dissimilar to that of our statistical neighbours.

 

AGREED to note the report.

 

The Committee sought clarification on who were Haringey’s statistical neighbours. In response officers advised that it was a group of around 7 or 8  London boroughs which had a similar make up and demographics to Haringey. The Corporate Performance Manger agreed to circulate the list of statistical neighbouring boroughs to the Committee.

Action: Margaret Gallagher

Supporting documents: