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.

Mr Richard Hutton, Senior Performance Officer, presented the item. There was a detailed discussion on the performance data and members asked several questions and points of clarifications.

The Committee heard that:

•     When a young person had been in care for a certain period of time after their 16th birthday, the young person would be entitled to leaving care services. This meant that the individual would have an allocated personal advisor and be given financial and moral support.  Efforts would be made to ensure that the individual would be settled into permanent accommodation, that the individual's aspirations would be supported including furnishing. Support would also be provided for emotional wellbeing and mental health needs.  Work would be done with the multi-agency set-up for any interconnected issues, such as the use of drugs.

•     Regular dental checks were provided, but there were some underlying issues.  This had been escalated to Public Health England. There was a small programme within London whereby if a young person was unable to get a dental appointment, then one could be provided. This included urgent dental appointments or routine checks which would have a waiting period of two to four weeks. It was important that dental appointments be encouraged.

•     In relation family acute stress points, when cases escalated from Early Help, this was largely due to the complexities of parental consent and barriers that impact parental engagement that could be provided by Early Help. When cases were tracked, there had not been any cases which had gone to court which had not satisfied the criteria. For families in acute stress, there was more work done at the earlier intervention processes, partly due to mental health issues. A child could not be taken into care simply on the bases that the family was suffering from financial hardship.

•     During the coronavirus crisis, social workers were one of the only resources that were available for young people and this had a long-term effect on service delivery across the system. Efforts were underway to redesign how the issue would be addressed. There was a challenge regarding the number of care leavers with undiagnosed mental health support needs. The stress was becoming visible amongst care leavers. Therefore, there was a lot of the pressure on social workers and the young adult service to advocate and to intervene. 

•     The target for pathway plans was being met (at 84%) and this was being tracked on a fortnightly basis.

•     In relation to children in care, the competing priorities were the same, although there had been some movement in the summer. A high number of young people had turned 16 recently and the Council was now planning at the age of 15 and a half years of age regarding their prospective future. Soon all young people would have a pathway plan where required.

•     Young people reaching the age of 25 having issues such as not being able to contact their personal advisor would be referred to Adult Services for a Care Act assessment. Work was being done with GPs to see what community resources or treatment could be put in place. There was floating support available to assist with young people in their own accommodation. Haringey also had a contract with MIND to provide therapy to young people virtually or in person. General support could always be given to any young person even if they were over the age of 25.

•     The locality model led by the Adults team had adopted the transitional safeguarding protocol. This means  that over time there were agencies that would ensure that any young person who needed further support beyond the age of 25 in Haringey would have a place to turn too. The specific individuals would be identified on the year of the 25th birthday and conversations would be held with them regarding their future support needs. However, it was more challenging to arrange support for those young people who did not live in the borough.

•     In relation to a comment re the data the breakdown for the number of children in care and the method of the LA duty to care for them is denoted by those under a Care Order, S.20 and UASC.

•     There were eight children who were in semi-independent accommodation. They were in the age group of 16 years and older. Only two were not meaningfully engaged in education, two were working, two in education and two were in further education.

The Committee noted that paragraph relating to conflicting and challenging priorities required more detail especially the kinds of challenges that the young people and the service was facing.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.