Agenda item

Mr Richard Hutton, Performance, Data and Analytics Manager, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·       Occasionally, there may be a situation where care proceedings may be in progress. In such a situation, a parent might be placed in a parent and child foster placement. In that scenario, the child may be then placed with parents, or perhaps at the end of proceedings, a child may go home with a parent in a community. It was at the conclusion of that process whereby an assessment could be undertaken and the assessment would be called a ‘placement with parents’ assessment.

·       An annual report was produced on EHCPs that had been refused assessment or issue. This had been done for the last two years and was used to track and monitor progress and to make sure that decision making was robust. This had been validated in the SEND inspection so the methodology being applyed was likely correct. In the last 12 months, of all of the plans that had been refused issue or assessment, the main reasons included children having had moved out of borough (the multi-agency panel felt that there was more that could be done to support children's needs through the ordinary offer of education), children (or young people) had moved into employment or training, or that there was not enough information. All of this analysis was shared with headteachers so that they were aware of the reasons and how it compared to statistical neighbours and benchmarking. If any issue or assessments were refused, a Next Steps meeting was offered. This could look at why the decision had been made, but also how they could be supported through the ordinary offer of education. This was generally done with the education provider and the person that had made the referral.

·       There were two panels. One that focused on children in care and that would include some who had EHCP plans. There was also another panel which had SEND power on it and they received regular reports. Further information could be provided to members outside the meeting.

·       Prior to the coronavirus crisis, the number of children in care used to be quite high.  Before the crisis, a lot of young people would arrive into the country in various methods. Since the crisis, people used other means to come into the country - by the seas - and so this had changed the numbers that came through to Haringey. There was also a national transfer scheme. Prior to the crisis, London was a high recipient of young people who were unaccompanied asylum seekers and there was an equation that stated that local authorities should receive 0.7% of the number of children in care. They needed to be unaccompanied asylum seekers. This then changed to 0.1% of the child population, but the children or young people were distributed across the country. So many were going past London to other places.

·       The point of the threshold was for Haringey to be able to show that it had taken on the fair amount of children in relation to its responsibilities as a borough. However, whenever Haringey was below the threshold and was asked by another borough to take on another child, then the Council would agree to it.

·       The 73% who had up to date Asset + related to the cohort within the Youth Justice Service. Some of them were associated with care or support from social services. One third of the cohort was open to social care at the same time.

·       In relation to the 22% of the youth justice system being children looked after, there was a cyclical issue. When a child was remanded in custody, they automatically became looked after. Currently, the Council had a few children in our looked after cohort remanded in custody, so they became looked after due to having committed an offence rather than having committed an offence after having become a looked after child. There had been a reduction of this from one third to one quarter in the last two years and compared with the borough’s statistical neighbours.  

·       There used to be a time where, if a young person was remanded, or even entered the criminal justice system, then they were not considered to be in care and the impact of this was that the individual did not get the support. In many ways, there were positive to the current system as the social worker would work to make sure that the child had their health and care in order and were being monitored. Now, when a young person was remanded, they become a child in care and this meant that regular reviews had to be held, the young person was getting their education and anything else that was necessary. If the institution was suspected of being inadequate, then the Council could speak to a relevant person and also check up on the individual.  Should the individual come out of the criminal justice system before the age of 25, the Council would support them through resettlement. This helped with housing and other support stopping the individual from quickly going back into the system.

·       It was very important to make sure that the young people saw dentists. It tended to be older young people who made the decision that they did not want to be going to the dentist. About 88% were seeing dentists. This was an improvement and the Council always tried to have it as close as 100% as possible.  However, older young people were free to make their own choices.

·       The 11% which referred to the reason a placement ended was due to standard of care concern often fluctuated. Some of it was due to of this was due to the rebranding of the semi-independent accommodation or supported accommodation.

·       In relation to young people who were NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training), this was one of the key areas of focus for the coming months. The Council had a care leavers program which was designed in part to look at how the Council could have as many pathways for young people to have routes into education, employment and training and jobs in the family business. The Council was working hard in the area to address the issue because you people needed to have the best possible outcomes.

The Chair felt that the issue relating to NEETs was a topical issue and something that the Corporate Parenting Advisory Board may wish to focus on more due to such big changes being proposed nationally in relation to investment to help get people into employment. An update could be provided on progress in the area.

RESOLVED:

To note the report.