Agenda item

Bev Sharpe (Assistant Director for Family Services) presented the report that highlighted the significant responsibilities the local authority has in relation to looked after children (LAC) and care leavers and how it discharged those responsibilities.

Bev Sharpe noted that the number of looked after children had increased nationally by 8.75% since 2014 to 75,420. During the same 4-year period, numbers in Hammersmith and Fulham had increased by 12.7% to 230 – equivalent to 64 per 10,000 of the child population. Since the report was written these numbers had increased further to 245. In response to these increases the Council had invested in the Family Assist and LAC Assist teams and they were working hard on placement stability. There had also been a sharp increase in care leavers due to 2017 legislation that gave councils a duty to support care leavers up to the age of 25.

The Chair asked why there had been such a significant increase in the number of looked after children in recent years. Bev Sharpe said there was a range of factors – austerity, older children were entering the system. Steve Miley (Director for Children’s Services) said he had noticed a change – traditional social work was about protecting children within the family (mental health, domestic violence, drugs and alcohol etc.) but now on top of that there was also the influence of peers, people being exploited or pushed into dangerous behaviours like drugs and knife crime. Rather than just having to deal with a family the problems were shaped by the whole community. In response to this the Council was thinking about how to reshape its services to be more effective. This was an issue across the Country and Councils were talking about 'contextual safeguarding' - going beyond just the family.

Matt Jenkins asked if the Council received any additional support from Government given the increase in looked after children. Steve Miley said there was no additional support. The entire cost was borne by the Council.

Councillor Alexandra Sanderson asked about the gender ratio of children coming into care – why were there almost twice as many boys as girls? Bev Sharpe said the difference was largely due to the number of older teenage boys coming into care system.

Councillor Sanderson noted the number of placement moves of three or above had gone up (page 15) - she asked if this was a trend and what more the Council could do to bring this number down. Bev Sharpe said officers were looking at what more they could do to support carers. Social workers did try to place children with in-house foster carers where possible.

Councillor Sanderson noted only 4 children were adopted in both 2016-17 and 2017-18. She asked how many children were eligible for adoption during those periods. Bev Sharpe said adoption numbers were very low across the Country due to Government legislation that requires Councils to explore every option for keeping babies within the family. That has meant fewer young children being placed for adoptions.

Councillor Sanderson then moved on to CAMHS (9.3 and 9.4 of the report) - she asked if there were challenges with people moving out of borough and losing support. Bev Sharpe said there was and that had always been a problem for the service. Looked after children do have CAMHS support that will follow a young person if they move but long-term support should be secured through a local GP and it can be very hard to get young people into local services because the waiting lists are so long.

Councillor Lucy Richardson asked what services the Council offers to 18-25 year olds. She noted that employment figures and apprenticeship figures were down – and asked was the Council doing anything to address those issues? Did the Council track outcomes? Bev Sharpe noted that H&F had a very ambitious 'virtual school' (led by Amelia Steele) that was working to develop apprenticeship opportunities. She was confident those numbers have improved since the report was written. Steve Miley added that the figures related to a small cohort, so percentages were swayed by very small movements. There was still more to do on non-academic pathways though.

Councillor Richardson asked for more information on the Council's plans for housing foster carers locally. Steve Miley said this was a challenge due to the borough's accommodation profile. Many fostering applicants don’t have spare bedrooms for example. Bev Sharpe added that the Council was currently looking at a scheme to lend money for home improvements to foster carers. In addition, officers were bidding for funding from the Mayor's Office for housing schemes. The Council also had a contract with Centrepoint for 72 beds in borough for young people of 18 years and above.

Councillor Asif Siddique asked if there were any limits on the number of children that the Council could take into care in any given year, given the department's limited budget. Bev Sharpe said while they did have a fixed budget, Children's Services would always provide support where there was a child or family in need. The department tried to keep costs down where possible by looking at kinship carers and in-house placements. The biggest pressures on the department's budget were commissioned independent foster carer agency places or residential placements.

Councillor Mark Loveday noted that there were 230 looked after children in total and of them, 72 percent were in foster placements – mostly out of the borough, and a very small number were in adoption. He asked where the remainder were placed? Steve Miley said the other young people were in semi-independent accommodation. That was a stepping stone from family-based care to living on their own in their own property. Councillor Loveday asked how the 72 Centrepoint beds fitted in. Bev Sharpe said they were for young people aged 16-18 years old and care leavers – young people for whom the Council had a parenting responsibility.

Councillor Loveday asked where the residential care placements were – were they out of the borough?  Steve Miley said they were spread across the Country - Kent, the North of England, Scotland. There was a shortage of placements for hard-to-place young people. Children's Services were working with Commissioning colleagues to find the most appropriate placements.

Councillor Loveday noted that in the past, members of the Committee would have visited these placements to ensure they were up to standard – but this couldn't be done anymore given they were so far away. Officers assured members that there were independent visitors who carried out safeguarding visits.

Councillor Loveday, looking at page 12 of the report, noted that the number of looked after children categorised as 'citizens' had remained roughly stable going back to 2014 but there had been significant increases in UASC from 2014 to 2015 – then continuing on in 2016, 2017, and 2018. He asked if this picture was similar going further back, beyond 2014. Steve Miley said going back the 'citizen' number was much higher. 10 years ago, it was in the 400s (as compared with 197 in 2018). UASC numbers have fluctuated. There has been a genuine pressure in numbers on London as a whole. All councils in London took a percent of the UASC population but proposals to share the number across the Country didn't happen so the pressure has been greater.

Councillor Loveday noted the additional 15 UASC 'Dubs' children that were separate to the Home Office allocation. He asked why the report stated the Home Office allocation should have been 25 but the table on page 12 showed 33 including 1 Dubs child. Steve Miley said it was possible for the Council to go above the threshold if, for example, an asylum seeker turned up at the police station in Shepherd’s Bush they would become H&F's responsibility.

Nandini Ganesh asked if the Council assessed UASC children for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) - and how they tracked people with SEND beyond the age of 25. Mandy Lawson (Assistant Director of SEND) said UASC children were not treated any differently to any other child entering care. They would be allocated virtual school help, go through the usual processes of assessments and support. If they had SEND needs they would be introduced to the disabled children’s team. Care leavers had two pathways - if they are able to live independently they go through the standard care leavers pathway – if not they would be referred to Adult Social Care.

Councillor Sanderson noted that she was proud of H&F for sending social workers out to the Calais migrant camps and supporting the children there.

Councillor Sanderson noted the amazing outcomes in 10.3 of the report, including young people winning places to study at Cambridge and Central St. Martins. She asked if there was support for those young people while they were at University, like peer-to-peer support? And did care leavers who have achieved great things come back and inspire the next generation of care leavers? Bev Sharpe assured members that there was support available. She also noted that a care leaver who is currently qualifying to be a doctor is developing a mentoring scheme for care leavers.

Councillor Sanderson noted the figure of 4 percent of care leavers in custody (13.4 of the report). She asked if that meant they were in prison or if it included those on remand. She also asked how this compared with national figures. Bev Sharpe responded that H&F's custody rates were very good. The looked after children and youth offending teams worked very closely together to keep those figures low.

The Chair drew attention to the fact that H&F was the first Council to introduce Council Tax exemptions for care leavers (13.5 of the report). Since the introduction in April 2017, another 35 Councils have implemented the same scheme.

Kim Dero (Chief Executive) asked why children identified as having a black and / or minority ethnic background accounted for 41% of Looked After Children in 2017-18. Steve Miley said the figures reflected the social make-up of the borough.

The Chair asked how successful the Council had been in recruiting diverse foster carers. Bev Sharpe said they did have very diverse group of foster carers and social worker tried to carefully match cultural backgrounds.

Nandini Ganesh asked if a child with complex behaviours was kept in care overnight – would they be classified as 'looked after'. Steve Miley said that wouldn't automatically mean they were 'looked after' – the definition was 75 nights in one year, or 17 nights in row to be classified as 'looked after'. Otherwise they would be considered a 'child in need'.

Councillor Sanderson asked what support kinship carers would get from the Council? Bev Sharpe said they would receive fostering support, join support groups, get social worker visits etc. Councillor Sanderson asked if the support groups had crèches. Bev Sharpe said they didn't, but all carers were encouraged to have a support carer - who would be checked by social workers and the police – who could look after the children while the main carer is out.

The Chair asked how the assessment of Corporate Parenting was measured. What could the Committee do to hold the Council to account in this area? Bev Sharpe said there was a Corporate Parenting Board and a steering group. They were also looking to set up an advisory board so young people could be more involved in the planning process. Officers gave young people the opportunity to provide feedback on their services and support through regular consultations that there reported to the Board.

Councillor Loveday noted this was a challenge given that the majority of young people were now out of the borough. Officers said they all have an allocated social worker and see them regularly. The department's aim was that all looked after children received the same level of service, in or out of the borough.

The Chair though it would be good for the Committee to look into this area further and see if any improvements could be made. Bev Sharpe said there was definitely still development work to do – i.e. how can we engage with other departments better (apprenticeships, Housing etc.).

The Chair noted the educational attainment figures in the report but said it would be more useful to know the figures on progress. Bev Sharpe said the virtual school did track this data and could provide the figures. Steve Miley added that all of the national research showed that children’s attainment improves through care.

ACTION: Bev Sharpe

Eleanor Allen asked for figures on special guardianship orders – for those who were no longer in care but where the Council continued to provide support. Steve Miley noted that these had now exceeded adoption numbers, it was an important pathway out of care. He said he could provide figures outside of the meeting.

ACTION: Steve Miley

RESOLVED

The Committee commented on and noted the report.