Agenda item

Verbal update

The Panel received a short verbal update from Cllr Zena Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools & Families on recent developments within her portfolio. This was followed by a Q&A session with the Panel members. The key points put forward by the Cabinet Member in her introduction are summarised below:

·         The Council underwent a three-week SEND inspection shortly after the Christmas holidays. Verbal feedback was given and the inspection report was expected to be published at the end of March. The Cabinet Member thanked Amanda Bernard and SEND Power for their participation and collaboration during the inspection. The Cabinet Member set out that co-production had be how Children’s Services operated.

·         Corporate Parenting Week took place last week and the Cabinet Member commented that it was a wonderful event that culminated in an awards ceremony for the foster parents. The Cabinet Member was effusive in her praise of the foster parents, the tremendous work they did, and the love and care that they showed the children.

·         The Cabinet Member set out that the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee had really moved forward. They were participating in a champions project, where members had taken an area of interest and acted as an advisor/critical friend around children’s social care.

·         The first Youth at Risk conference took place at Spurs. It was reported that this event was well attended by partners and that they received a data presentation by the police.

·         A event with school governors had taken place. The Cabinet Member welcomed this, but advised that there was a lot of work to do to support school governors in what was a very difficult time for school finances.

·         An event with SEND Power took place which focused on mainstream education for SEND children. The event was attended by around 30 parents and a number of head teachers.

The following arose during the Q&A session with the Cabinet Member:

1. The Panel queried the extent to which it was possible to match a child with a foster parent who wanted a long term placement, and the extent to which this was done with children and young people who had additional care needs. In response, officers advised that the Council adopted a therapeutic approach when matching placements, particularly those which involved children who were using CAMHS. Reassurance was provided that social workers were mindful of where strong relationships had been developed with foster carers. Following, the required assessments taking place, foster carers could apply for adoption or Special Guardianship. Where it was right for the child the Council would support the child to move on to another placement. The DCS reiterated that all decisions were driven by the needs of the child first and foremost.
2. The Panel sought assurances about whether the Council had a process in place for Jewish foster placements. In response, officers advised that there were exiting links with the Charedi community and that they were working to move forward on a more formalised process, but that this had met a few challenges. Officers advised that they were working hard to develop a diverse group of foster carers. In response to a clarification, officers suggested that they key challenge was around a national paucity of foster parents.
3. In response to a follow-up question about the diversity of foster placements, the Cabinet Member advised that the foster carer event was very representative of the different communities in Haringey and that she was very proud of the diversity of the borough’s foster carers. Officers advised that it was important that the borough had a wide pool of foster carers to reflect its communities, but that there were also circumstances where children needed to be moved very quickly. The Cabinet Member suggested that there were no hard and fast rules and that some foster parents looked like the children they cared for and some did not. It was emphasised that it was the courts who made a decision about whether a child was in danger and needed to be moved on, not the child’s social worker.
4. The Panel sought assurances about what the biggest challenges were over the next six months. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that a lack of money in the system was the biggest challenge. There was simply not enough money in the education system. Schools were funded on a per pupil basis and so funding levels for future years were variable, these would largely be determined by the number of children in the borough.
5. The Panel sought assurances around permanent social workers, and comments were made around the parents of SEND children found it very difficult when social workers who were on temporary contracts moved on. The Panel queried whether there was a portal that could be used by parents to logon and check the details of their social worker. In response, the Panel was advised that the Council had moved from the previous Mosaic system to Liquid Logic. The new system had an add-on for a portal that could be accessed by parents with a child with an Educational Health and Care Plan. The portal would be orientated towards professionals and parents being able to access it. It was commented that the timescales for implementation were between 12 and 18 months.
6. The Panel emphasised the need to ensure that parents and carers were consulted on the design of how the portal would work. Officers set out that it was an existing system that had already been developed, it wasn’t being designed from scratch, as such it had already undergone extensive user testing.

RESOLVED

Noted.