Agenda item

This report provides an analysis of the performance data and trends for an agreed set of measures relating to looked after children on behalf of the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee

The Committee considered this report which provided an analysis of the performance data and trends for an agreed set of measures relating to looked after children on behalf of the Corporate Parenting and Advisory Committee.

In addition, the Committee:

·         Sought clarity on the difference between a permanency plan and long term fostering arrangements. Officers informed there was statutory guidance which stated local authorities should match children to long term foster carers on a permanent basis, where possible, but this required a formal process to be approved by a panel for this to become a permanency plan. 

·         Queried the number of special guardianship orders, which was lower than the Council’s statistical neighbours numbers were. Officers noted this could be for several reasons such as situations where children had complex needs and families were not able to manage looking after that child. Additionally, the level of financial deprivation in Haringey meant it was difficult for certain families to raise their kinship. The Committee noted the sum of money special guardians received was means tested whereas this was not the case for foster carers.

·         Noted the proportion of agency social workers in Haringey was relatively high at 30% but its turnover of social workers was low at 8%. Officers confirmed they were actively encouraging their agency social workers to become permanent members of staff but noted a high proportion of agency workers was not a unique problem faced by Haringey; it was a London wide issue. Officers informed there was a memorandum of understanding between the local authorities that they would pay agency social workers within the same band to prevent their costs spiralling. It was also noted there were to be interviews for permanent social worker positions and a number of agency workers had applied.

·         Queried when it was expected the use of the new e.PEPs would become fully embedded to improve compliance. Officers noted the current paper form PEP had two parts which required input and signing off by the child’s social worker and then the school. These had not always being completed and had been of variable quality. The e.PEPs now allowed the Virtual School to have sight of every PEP and it had found the quality of the PEPs improving since this oversight was introduced. It had also become a requirement that the Virtual School sign off each PEP. The target was for the social worker and school to send the PEPs to the Virtual School within two weeks and then for the Virtual School to sign them off within 5 days. Social workers and Schools were still adjusting to the new system but schools were being emailed to encourage them to complete their PEPs. Officers suggested an escalation policy may need to be created but were optimistic that, over time, the completion of the PEPs in a timely manner by all parties would become routine. The Virtual School had created an informational leaflet to be sent to schools and refresher training to improve the percentage of PEPs completed. It was anticipated the numbers would improve within the next term and Officers were encouraged to create a target.

·         Praised Officers for the number of children looked after (for at least 12 months) with an up-to-date health assessment reaching 98%.

·         Queried the increase in the number of care leavers aged 17-18 and 19-21  year olds in receipt of leaving care services considered in touch with the local authority. Officers confirmed this was partly because of data being better recorded. They also confirmed that for those not in touch with the leaving care services, all was done to re-establish contact by the Officers, including searching the police system to ascertain whether they were in prison.