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 Collymore, who was substituted by Councillor Chappell.

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

None.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

None received.

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

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the last meeting, held on 20 July 2022, 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 Care In Action (CIA) and Care Leavers in Action (CLIA) to feedback on recent activity.

T (Care in Action) informed the Committee that the Bright Spots Survey was now officially finished, and the Care in Action (CIA) group were preparing for the next survey launch and designing posters for publicity. The CIA group had also designed a ‘dos and don’ts’ leaflet for foster carers which was now being shared with the Fostering Support Team and Care Leavers in Action (CLIA) for comments and incorporated into foster carer training. The leaflet focused on day-to-day life, such as how foster carers could accommodate a child’s needs including dietary requirements, religious beliefs and cultural celebrations. CIA had trialled some other venues to run their group sessions and were now back at the Civic Centre as it was felt to be a trustworthy, safe and comfortable space. Over the summer, CIA had arranged a members meet up with activities such as quizzes, prizes, catering, a bouncy castle, pool table, crafts, and a DJ, and had over 50 people attending. There had been many leaders in attendance and T felt it had been good to see them in a more relaxed space outside of their professional capacity. CIA also had a residential trip scheduled and T was excited for the people attending that and hoped they had a good experience. One of the main projects T had been working on was with the Brent Care Journeys Team, co-designing a crafts project to capture the memories of looked after children. T shared the memory book she had created as part of the project, which had made her feel like important and valued. She would be feeding back the pros and cons of the project and hoped it would soon be available for other foster children to access.

J (CLIA) informed the Committee that CLIA had been involved in a play at the Kiln Theatre with Brent Care Journeys, following personal stories about people’s experience in care and how they felt. He felt it had been a good experience to get voices heard. There had also been a display wall featuring poetry, model boxes and other work CLIA had been doing over the last few months. CLIA had already had their residential trip, doing activities such as archery, laser tag and making bracelets. Newer members of the group had attended, and everyone got along well so it had been a good bonding experience. J gave feedback that the beds at the residential had been too small. Two of the areas of focus that CLIA were now working on, following the Bright Spots Survey, were housing and issues relating to trust. J had co-facilitated training around this, with the objective for staff to understand that young people needed at least one trusted person in their life. Good collaboration and partnerships had formed while doing the piece of work and J hoped it would enhance his skill set.

C (CLIA) had been part of a commissioning panel for a targeted mental health and emotional wellbeing service for children and young people. C was also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To provide information to the Corporate Parenting Committee regarding the current position for placement stability. The report explains the reasons for the increase in multiple placement moves and articulates the work undertaken to minimise unplanned moves for Looked After Children.

Zafer Yilkan (Director for Integration and Improved Outcomes, Brent Council) introduced the report. He highlighted there had been a slight increase in placement moves since 2021, mostly due to covid-19 and the number of contacts coming through to children’s services. In terms of the placement pattern, there were a large number of over 16s coming into the system under emergency arrangements and a large number of Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASCs). Linking those issues with the national shortage of placements meant that Brent had a challenge in terms of placing children and young people. There were a number of local authorities bidding for one placement every day, and the competition caused the cost of placement to rise. The department were implementing a number of strategies to ensure placements remained stable, including placement stability meetings, care packages and wraparound support. In addition, there were challenges with recruiting foster carers. In relation to care leavers, the percentage of staying put arrangements in Brent was relatively high, which meant those children were in stable, long-term placements with their foster carers past the age of 18, but the placement was then not available for other children to move in to.

The Chair thanked Zafer for his introduction and invited contributions from the Committee, with the following points raised:

The Committee noted that Brent’s fostering allowance was below the average compared to the rest of West London and asked if it could be changed. Anecdotal evidence suggested that other local authorities were paying around £100 more per week than Brent. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) advised that historically Brent had paid lower due to budget constraints. The allowance worked on a graded approach, aligned to the age of the child/ren being placed. He felt that the allowance was not the only reason people became foster carers, as the support available also attracted foster carers. Brent was looking at their arrangements currently, working with Ealing and Harrow around the possibility of combining services. If the department made the case to level up allowances to attract foster carers, this would have implications on the cost to the budget. It was highlighted that when people stopped foster caring their reasons for doing so were not usually related to allowances.

The Committee queried whether there was anything IFAs were doing better than Brent that the Council could learn from. Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) advised the Committee that IFA recruitment processes were not different from Brent’s processes. In terms of retention, the department were looking at how they could further support foster carers with a therapeutic offer, looking to see what additional benefits could be offered within the resources it had, because IFAs often had good out of hours support systems that could be accessed 24/7. Zafer Yilkan added that most local authorities were very clear about the fostering guidance and followed the same processes. Brent’s placement sufficiency for bed capacity was relatively good and the department maximised that capacity where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To provide information to the Corporate Parenting Committee about the general management of the in-house fostering service and how it is achieving good outcomes for children, in accordance with standard 25.7 of the Fostering National Minimum Standards (2011).

Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the report. she explained that there had been a change in the fostering team’s structure and two fostering teams had now amalgamated into one team. She introduced Elena Muller as the new Service Manager for Fostering and Kinship. Work in the team was currently focused on how value could be added to fostering support, using internal resources where possible. For example, how the in-house trained social pedagogue could be used to support placements.

The Chair thanked Kelli for her introduction and invited contributions from the Committee, with the following points raised:

In relation to recruitment, the Committee queried how the Council promoted the need for local foster carers and whether the department were in touch with organisations such as Brent Hubs to help spread that message. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) informed the Committee that there was a Marketing Recruitment Officer within the team who was plugged in to the communities team and the different events that were occurring through the Council and through community organisations. Outreach work had been targeted at specific communities including Somali communities with some success. Much of the outreach work involved educating communities as to what fostering was and the department had done work with Brazilian communities and Brent faith forums to reach newer communities. The data on outreach work would be included for future reports.

Nigel Chapman committed to inviting a foster carer and kinship foster carer to the next meeting to talk about their fostering experience.

RESOLVED:

i)              To note the report.

To provide information to the Council’s Corporate Parenting Committee in relation to adoption performance, progress and activity of Adopt London West, and good outcomes being achieved for children.

Debbie Gabriel (Adopt London West) introduced the 6 monthly adoption update. She highlighted that the partnership in Brent felt very strong and mature, and the performance in Brent was strong. The two major indicators of performance were; the average length of time it took from the court granting a care order to the match with a family being identified; and the amount of time it took to move a child in with the family. The target length of time for matching following a care order was 121 days. The national average for matching was 125 days and the London average was 274, compared to Brent’s average of 171 days. The target length of time for moving a child in with a family once matched was 426 days. The national average was 450 days and the London average was 476 days, compared to Brent’s average of 328 days. Brent currently had 7 children placed, but it was highlighted that the courts continued to struggle with delays.

Work within the service currently was focused on promoting and developing permanence with adoption and social work colleagues. In addition, Adopt London West (ALW) were working to promote and enhance the take up of advice, support and advocacy from ‘Kinship’ for kinship carers, regardless of their legal order. ALW had the benefit of an in-house Clinical Psychologist to support foster carers, adopters and children through transitions and developmental trauma. There was also work being done for National Adoption Week which was occurring the week of the meeting, with the theme ‘identity’. The campaign assets for that had been shared with Brent’s Corporate Communications Team for social media activity.

The Chair thanked Debbie for the introduction and invited those present to make contributions, with the following points raised:

The Committee highlighted the small number of approvals for families from a Black or Mixed ethnicity community in the reporting period, and asked if there was any way to increase the number of approvals. Members highlighted the Black Community Action Plan (BCAP), which had BCAP Champions who ALW could link with to increase the number of approved Black and Mixed ethnicity adopter families. Debbie Gabriel agreed that it would be helpful to connect with someone working on the BCAP. She highlighted that the small number of approvals was likely due to the fact it had been a very quiet quarter for approvals. In relation to the 37 approved adopters, 47% were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background. Of the adopters waiting for approval, officers would return with the ethnic breakdown at a future meeting.

The Committee asked for the next report to detail the success rate for Special Guardianship Orders.

In relation to the Adoption Support Fund, members asked whether that could be accessed quickly. Debbie Gabriel advised the Committee that officers were under pressure in terms of processing those applications but there was no waiting list as officers prioritised processing applications. Colleagues in other London regions did have a backlog.

The Committee asked about 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 Head of Executive and Member Services or her representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.