Agenda and minutes

The committee is advised that the public may be excluded from meetings whenever it is likely in view of the nature of the proceedings that exempt information would be disclosed. Meetings of the Corporate Parenting Committee are attended by representatives of Care In Action (CIA), the council’s Children in Care Council. The committee is therefore recommended to exclude the press and public for the duration of the meeting,  as the attendance of CIA representatives necessitates the disclosure of the following category of exempt information, set out in the Local Government Act 1972:  - information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

RESOLVED: that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the duration of the meeting, on the grounds that the attendance of representatives from the council’s Children in Care council, necessitated the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 2, Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act, namely: Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

Apologies were received from Councillor Nirmala Patel, who was substituted by Councillor Unger.

The Chair led introductions and welcomed those present as new members of the Committee.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the last meeting, held on 13 April 2026, be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

None.

This is an opportunity for members of Empire – BCJ 2.0 to feedback on recent activity.

The Chair welcomed representatives from Brent Care Journeys 2.0 (BCJ 2.0), now known as BCJ Empire, to the meeting and invited them to provide updates from the group.

J provided details of an event Empire had attended in Birmingham known as Amplified, for which Empire had been shortlisted for a grant. J had delivered a leadership workshop and spread the message of what Empire did to inspire other care experienced young people across the nation. J had also attended the BCJ Empire Summer Day which had included team sports, game stations, open mic sessions and other events.

K had delivered several speeches at the recent Children, Young People and Community Development Practice Conference, including a speech about leadership and a ‘walk in my shoes’ exercise to get staff thinking more actively from a young person’s perspective. As part of the work to find a dedicated safe space for care leavers, K would be viewing a Council building to see if it was an appropriate space. The building had been closed for renovations for 3 years following a flood and the Council was considering how to bring that back into use.

In providing further information on the work of BCJ Empire to the new Committee members, K informed members that some of BCJ Empire were employed as care ambassadors with the Quality Assurance Team to review placement providers, took part in interview panels for key staff, and were working on a Trusted Buddies programme for care leavers to mentor and befriend children in care. Empire was also working to get more young people in Brent in decision making spaces, and Empire members were also part of Brent Youth Parliament and other spaces to spread their message and voice. K highlighted that Empire members had rich and diverse experiences and many different interests to support the Empire work. Empire was also working to influence other boroughs as well.

The Chair congratulated Brent Care Journeys on the productive term, and commended the work being done to build the group and gain participation. He asked to return to the conversation around a dedicated safe space for care leavers at future meetings.

The Committee asked whether there were any London initiatives to bring care experienced young people together. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People and Community Development, Brent Council) confirmed that there was a London Children in Care Council which Brent had previously had representation on and felt it would be good to get more presence in that space again. Some important agreements had come out of that group such as the waiver of Council Tax for Brent care leavers.  

As no further issues were raised, the Chair thanked Empire Care Leavers for their updates and closed the item.

To receive an update on the recent Ofsted Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS) which took place in April / May 2026.

Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People and Community Development, Brent Council) introduced a report informing members of the outcome of the Ofsted inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS) that took place between 27 April 2026 and 1 May 2026, which was published on 17 June 2026. In introducing the report, he explained that the Council was regularly inspected by Ofsted, with a full inspection every 3 years across a two-week period. Inspectors reviewed all services including the Brent Family Front Door, children adopted, children fostered and children leaving care and was very thorough. He confirmed that Ofsted had reviewed many cases and spoken to many people. He was pleased with the outcome where Brent Council was judged ‘good’ across the board. For leaving care, Brent had been close to outstanding. The report detailed the strengths identified, and he was pleased that the voice of children and young people had been recognised as a strength as it was a priority for the Council. There were two areas for improvement relating to corporate parenting; life story work to enable children in care long-term to better understand their life history and; training for foster carers and improving the take up rate. The Council was required to submit an action plan outlining how it would improve those areas to Ofsted, and Councillor Rubin, as the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, would have sight of that action plan before it was shared.

The Chair congratulated Children’s Services on the outcome, thanked Nigel Chapman for the introduction and invited contributions from the Committee, with the following points raised:

The Committee asked whether any of BCJ Empire had spoken to the inspectors when they visited. K confirmed that many members of both Empire and Care in Action, the younger group of children in care, had been spoken to during the inspection. In response to whether K felt the inspectors asked the right questions, K advised that they had not asked many questions and had not asked what children and young people did to participate and engage with each other and the Council. Many of the interactions had related to individual cases and life experiences.

The Committee asked how many care leavers were in employment, education or training compared to previous years. Nigel Chapman advised that the rate of young people in education, employment and training between 16-17 was good, but average for 18-21 year olds. He added that there were many factors in care experienced young people’s lives affecting why education, employment and training might be more challenging to get into, but there was a need for the Council to be persistent and follow up with young people through dedicated Personal Advisors. Brent did have higher rates of young people at university compared to other boroughs and offered work experience and apprenticeship opportunities, but he felt there was more that could be done in that space. He confirmed that the programmes available were very targeted as it was a relatively small cohort, and linked young  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a summary of the activity alongside strengths and areas for growth in supporting care experienced children and young people in Brent. This report fulfils the Council’s statutory obligations to present an annual report to the Corporate Parenting Committee, in line with the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations (2010).

Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the Annual Corporate Parenting Report 2025-26 detailing outcomes for Children Looked After and Care Leavers and a summary of the activity across the reporting year.

The Chair thanked Kelli Eboji for the report and then invited comments and questions from Committee members with the following raised:

The Committee asked how the Council retained local foster carers. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People and Community Development, Brent Council) advised that when foster carers were asked why they fostered for Brent, many responded that they wanted to give something back to their community. Fostering a child who lived in Brent meant it was easier for a local foster carer to get them to school and support contact with their family. If a foster carer looked after a child from another borough, then there was a need for them to travel more. Carers who continued to foster in Brent fed back that they enjoyed the support and relationship they had with their supervising social worker and training offer. Kelli Eboji added that the Mockingbird Constellation Model of Support, which Brent had introduced during the reporting year, provided an additional level of support. The Council was now looking to establish a second constellation working with carers to build communities between themselves.

In terms of recruitment of foster carers, Kelli Eboji advised that there was a lot of work in that space which would be detailed in the next fostering update report. A report was due to be submitted to Cabinet to extend the current recruitment programme the Council had with West London, which was a West London Fostering Hub made up of 8 West London Boroughs with a shared Front Door for recruitment. The extension of the agreement would include foster carer assessments and approvals. Nigel Chapman added that the principle behind that agreement was to share resource, work more collaboratively across boroughs to avoid fragmentation, and deliver a more co-ordinated offer across the region which offered an alternative to independent fostering agencies.

The Committee looked to understand whether there was a particular type of foster carer the Council needed, such as short term or long-term carers. Kelli Eboji advised that the Council needed more foster carers across the board and had many different types of foster carers. Some carers provided only respite care, some were short-term carers and the Council was currently exploring options for people wanting to provide shorter periods of care such as those who had weekends free to provide care. The Council was much less likely to place a child with a long-term carer straight away and therefore short-term carers were equally needed. The Committee advised that this messaging may incentivise more people to apply to foster. Officers added that word of mouth was very powerful and that councillors could play a role in spreading that message and letting the service know of anyone in the community interested in fostering. Nigel Chapman added that work had been done with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive information in relation to the health needs of children in care in Brent and the services provided to children in care in 2025-26.

Kim Lewis (Head of Clinical Services – Brent Children, CLCH) introduced a report providing information on the health needs of Brent looked after children and services provided to looked after children in 2025-26. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

• It was understood that, nationally, children in care often entered care in worse levels of health than their peers. As such, they benefited from support to navigate the health services that were available universally and often needed additional support from specialist nurses.
• CLCH had a caseload of 349 looked after children, which was a 5% increase on the previous year. The majority of children looked after in Brent that CLCH saw were between 5-16 years old, and the under 5 cohort was increasing whilst the under 16 cohort was reducing.
• CLCH had a very small health team with one Named Nurse post shared between two, two Looked After Children Nurses for Review Health Assessments (RHAs), 2 Consultant Community Paediatricians for Initial Health Assessments (IHAs), one Named Doctor, and a cohort of Resident Doctors from Northwick Park Hospital to support the team. Bank staff were also available to provide advice around adoption and fostering and were involved in the assessment of those who had applied to become adult foster carers and children going through the adoption process. There was a 2 day a week vacancy in the nursing service currently.
• IHAs were required to be completed within 15 days of a child coming into care. RHAs were conducted twice a year for children under 5 and once a year for children over 5. Monthly reporting on performance was sent to the West and North London Integrated Care Board (WNL ICB), including an analysis of any breaches of the deadlines.
• WNL ICB recently conducted an audit of IHA performance and as a result was looking to develop a core specification to ensure consistency across the 13 WNL boroughs with set standards.
• The three most common causes for breaches to the deadline were; challenges with referrals from the Council’s LAC team to the health team in a timely way; out of borough placements waiting for an assessment within the borough they were placed; and missed appointments.
• She had been meeting with Kelli Eboji to explore how to overcome some of the challenges in meeting the IHA and RHA deadlines. A deep dive on the breaches identified that there were multi-factorial reasons for the breaches and now that those were understood more deeply officers could start addressing them in a more cohesive way to improve performance.
• In relation to the health needs of looked after children, the number of children and young people with up-to-date immunisations was usually around 50% when they entered care which rose to 60% at review. The number of children with an up-to-date dental check was around 60% at entry to care which rose to 80% at review which was a good improvement, and the number of children with an up-to-date eye check was around 30% at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To receive information about the contribution of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) to the quality assurance and improvement of services for children who are looked after.

The Committee received a report from Sabine Kadhaya (Service Manager, Safeguarding and Reviewing, Brent Council) providing information on the activity of IROs to the quality assuring and improvement of services for looked after children across the 2025-26 reporting period. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

• The IRO report had received positive external validation via feedback from Ofsted.
• In relation to priority one – to make Looked After Child (LAC) reviews more child-led and encourage participation, the minutes of reviews were now written in the form of a therapeutic letter to the child which formed part of life story work, and there was high participation in reviews with LAC able to choose how their review was done in creative ways.
• A Practice Manager was now in post, directly managing four permanent IROs, but the service was still reliant on external agency staff to support that. There were discussions as to whether to bring another IRO in-house.
• A new performance management dashboard had been established, particularly to drive improvements in the timely completion of reviews.
• The average caseload of an IRO was 55, which was manageable.
• A significant increase in the use of Coram Voice for advocacy for older young people was being seen.
• Priorities for the current year were to increase the timely completion of LAC reviews, formalise the escalation process, improve transition planning post-18, and continue to improve child-centred practice.

The Chair thanked Sabine Kadhaya for her introduction and invited contributions from those present, with the following points raised:

The Committee asked what the statutory timescales for review were. Sabine Kadhaya explained that the first review upon a child entering care should take place within 3 months, and then reviews should happen every 6 months. If the child entering care was a baby then they had more regular reviews. Part of her role was to ensure those reviews happened within the statutory timeframes required and were reported to the DfE. She was under separate line management from the Head of LAC and Permanency to ensure there was some independence if there was a need to escalate issues.

In response to a query regarding the top areas that IROs felt needed further focus, Sabine Kadhaya advised IROs reported that children placed out of borough made completing reviews more difficult if there was a need to spend a long period of time travelling to complete the assessment. In addition, ensuring documentation for the child was ready before a review took place needed improvement.

Acknowledging the response that out of borough reviews were challenging, the Committee asked what percentage of children were placed out of borough. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People and Community Development, Brent Council) confirmed that 80% of children lived within 20 miles of Brent, with some children and young people having specific needs which could only be provided out of borough.

In response to how the service tracked the issues raised by IROs, Sabine Kadhaya explained that there was an escalation process on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director – Democratic and Corporate Governance or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

The Committee felt that it would be useful to have a work planning item at a future meeting, but acknowledged the need for a number of regular statutory reports that must be brought to the Committee which limited the number of items that could be added into the work programme. Where possible, the Committee would want to see future agenda items relating to; placement sufficiency; a dedicated space for care leavers; children and young people and decision-making; education, employment and training and the Council’s Employment Strategy; delivery against the Care Leaver’s Charter and; an update from the annual engagement meeting with Ofsted.