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

Beverley Hendricks, the Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care, took the Committee through the report as set out in pages 35-41 of the agenda pack. In addition, the following was highlighted:

• It was noted that at the end of September 2019, 418 children were looked after; 69 per 10,000 population. It was stressed that this number was what was expected based on Haringey’s demographics, and was in line with the looked after population at other local authorities.
• Regarding section 2.3, it was explained that 97 children ceased to be looked after in the first six months of 2019/20 for a range of reasons, such as returning home, being adopted and some turning 18.
• In relation to Personal Education Plans (PEPs), the Committee were informed that electronic Personal Education Plans (e.PEPs) were introduced approximately a year ago. It was noted that 60% of e.PEPs had been completed. An email would be sent to schools by the Assistant Director of Schools and Learning to remind schools of their statutory duty in getting the PEPs completed. Furthermore, someone would be commissioned to start on Friday 18^th November to work two days a week to focus on PEPs to ensure the level of high standards were maintained.  Additionally, by April next year there would be an overhaul in the administration of pupil premium to schools for looked after children. This entailed an automatic amount that would be administered to schools at first and then the schools would have to request the remainder from the Virtual School by outlining how they would spend the pupil premium. It was highlighted that there would have to be a high-quality e.PEP in place for schools to obtain the pupil premium. It was noted that these plans would make a difference in getting the PEPs completed to a high quality. In response to the Director of Children’s Service query as to whether a PEP that would be picked in a future term if it had been missed in the previous term, in response the Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care explained that there had been a concentrated audit in this area, and it was concluded that the quality of the PEPs had improved and there was evidence that the recommendations were being followed. It was further explained that the issue at hand was that the e.PEPs were not being signed off by schools, and the plans mentioned earlier would incentivise schools to give these PEPs priority. Additionally, it was noted that there was a mosaic working group looking into improve the system to evidence the work going on. In response to the Chair’s suggestion of liaising with safeguarding governors to ensure they had an eye on this area, the Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care informed the Committee that Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) had requested to escalate issues based on this area to the Board of Governors of schools. Therefore, the mechanism would be that the IROs would go through the DMT (Children’s Services Senior Leaders), and the DMT would make a decision around escalation to the Board of Governors based on any patterns identified around a cluster of schools. In response to a question around whether the dip in completion of PEPs was due to a system issue, it was explained the reason for the dip was that overall the PEPs were not completed to the standard required, for example not documenting how pupil premiums were spent. The Committee were assured that there would not be a stark drop at the beginning of every term once the PEPs were all caught up and approved.

·         Regarding the pathway plans, the Committee were informed that there was a dip in the pathway plans. The Deputy Head of Safeguarding and Social Care explained that in terms of the Young Adults Service, two weeks ago there were 9 cases in the service that did not have up to date pathway plans; however, currently 8 cases out of the 9 had been updated and the 9^th case was due to be updated within the week. The Committee were assured that pathway plans were reviewed every week, and detailed tracking of this area was undertaken on a fortnightly basis at performance meetings to ensure good quality pathways plans.

The following was noted in response to the discussion of the report:

• In response to a query on placement moves referenced at 2.11 of the report, the Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care noted that there were challenges around children between the ages of 13-15, some of whom were in residential placement. It was highlighted that the Council needed to work on building up relationships with private sector providers to ensure there were no placement disruption for children in those age ranges due to incidents, such as police being called for minor property damage.  The Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care suggested a piece of work was needed through the DMT process to find solutions, and further added that a Commission Officer had been brought to the service to address the issues.The Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care suggested that a report could be presented to the Committee at a future date around the impact of the work to address the issues.
• The Director of Children’s Services informed the Committee that the service was currently working on an invest to save proposal for Cabinet. The proposal would be for an investment of £100,000 to give the service capacity to undertake managing the market activity, with a view to procuring resources differently.