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 Hirani, who was substituted by Councillor Mistry.

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 1 February 2023, 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.

J (Care Leavers in Action) informed the Committee that he had been involved in speaking to Ofsted during their recent inspection of local authority children’s services in Brent. J had been asked about what services were available to care leavers and what could be improved, and care leavers had given some ideas of services they would like to see. One idea was subsidised driving lessons. The inspectors had been very friendly and spoke to each care leaver representative individually to understand the viewpoint of different types of care leavers. Another project that J had been involved in was around housing, looking at where care leavers could go to find information for accommodation when they became independent. They had made the suggestion that all services should be available in one place as a ‘one-stop shop’, and that it was important to ensure there were staff available who could communicate with people who had language barriers.

C (Care Leavers in Action) told the Committee about the trip that Care Leavers in Action (CLIA) had been preparing for, to see Wicked in the West End. CLIA had been on trips in the past, but it had been a while since the last one. CLIA would get the opportunity to meet the cast after the show and talk about inclusivity in the group, to look at ways to increase the membership of CLIA. The Committee heard that the work around building trusted relationships had been completed at the last CLIA session. That piece of work would be tracked to see its impact. One way this was being done was through a QR code on posters about building trusted relationships, where the reader could scan the code to be brought to a survey and feed back about the information on the poster. The group had also spoke about the national consultation and found it very interesting because the group had already been looking at ideas on a national scale, looking to other boroughs to see what they did.

The Chair thanked those present for their contributions and invited members of the Committee to ask questions to the CIA / CLIA representatives. The following questions were raised:

The Committee noted that the previous (2018) looked after children sub-judgement within the Ofsted inspection of children’s services had been rated ‘outstanding’ in comparison to the new rating of ‘good’. They asked what the members of CLIA felt had declined over the last few years to have reduced the Ofsted rating. C explained that Covid had a big impact on services everywhere. He felt there was a much more severe impact on care leavers, because many had reached the point where they lived alone, so when lockdown had been in effect care leavers’ mental health had took a decline as a result of loneliness and social isolation. C highlighted that healthy social interaction had a positive impact on mental health, and so it was difficult for care leavers without that. In addition, there had been a change in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To provide an overview of the numbers of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) in Brent and the services available to support them.

Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the report, which informed members of the Council’s legal responsibilities towards Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) under the Children’s Act 1989. She explained that UASC was defined as ‘at the time of making an application that the person is or appears to be under 18 and is applying in their own right because they have no guardian or relative in this country’. The number of UASCs in care had grown by approximately 34% in the UK over the past 12 months. This had been especially true for London, which continued to have the highest proportion of UASCs in the UK by a considerable margin. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

·         UASCs became known to the Council through different routes. They could present directly to the local police station or council offices, or may be a previously dispersed asylum seeker. There was also the pan London rota to fairly distribute presenting UASCs and the national transfer scheme managed by the Home Office.

·         Since August 2021, 59 people who were placed in hotel accommodation in Brent presented to the service as a UASC. This meant the service needed to assess those 59 people’s age via age assessment. A significant number of those 59 were found to be adults. It was not an exact science and there was a need to be sensitive due to the risk of judicial review. The Council normally worked to a margin of 5 years.

·         A dedicated UASC team had been created in Brent following the large influx of asylum seekers residing in hotel accommodation in order to respond to that specific pressure. There were social workers in that team who had specialist UASC knowledge and experience in completing age assessments.

·         As of March 2023, Brent had 43 young people in care who were UASCs, a significant drop from the previous year which was 74. Brent had 153 care leavers who were former UASC, making up 35% of the care leaver population.

·         In relation to support for UASCs, there was close working with the Brent Virtual School to ensure that, whether being assessed for their age or having had their age assessed and accepted, there was access to education. There was also close working with health partners to ensure quick health assessments and screenings. Regarding mental health and wellbeing support, there were several support services available. There was the WEST service delivered through the Anna Freud Centre, and specific group and 1-1 support for UASCs. Other community resources included WDP and Elevate, and there were other organisations that the Council linked with such as Young Roots and the Refugee Council. The Care Leavers Hub was also available to UASCs which they were encouraged to use, including the weekly football sessions run by the Leaving Care service which were particularly popular with UASCs and former UASCs and therapeutic Art sessions through Brent Care Journeys.

The Chair thanked Kelli for her introduction and invited contributions from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To provide information on the outcome of the recent Ofsted Inspection of Children’s Social Care.

The Chair introduced the item, which was the February 2023 Ofsted inspection report of children’s services in Brent Council, and congratulated all staff who had been involved in the inspection. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) advised that more detail would be provided at the next meeting regarding the actions the Council were taking in response to the inspection report.

The Chair invited the comments and questions from the Committee, with the following issues raised:

The Committee highlighted comments in the report about the attendance figures for children in care reviews and the quality of those reviews and queried whether that was the norm. They were advised that the attendance numbers were similar to the last inspection, so they had not declined but it was possible that expectations had increased. Most children did take part in their review in some way, usually through speaking with an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) or putting their feedback in writing. In having reviewed those interactions with IROs, Nigel Chapman advised that there were 1-2 employed through the IRO contract that were felt to be not offering as high a quality as would be preferred, where their language used had been officious and not child friendly for example, and which may have been missed in quality assurance work.

The Committee asked about care leavers’ understanding of and access to their health histories, which was a recommendation for improvement. Nigel Chapman highlighted that this was common with care leavers, who sometimes had a fractured history prior to care. The inspectors had found that care leavers, when spoken to, were not able to confirm they knew where their health history was and who to speak to if they needed it, and some personal advisers could not point to where they would get that information. He expressed the need to focus health colleagues and Council staff to be confident in knowing how to access that information. Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) added that care leavers could access their health history via their GPs and the information for doing that was provided to them at their final LAC review, but they may have lost that information or need reminding, so they were now looking to communicate and remind care leavers how to do this at multiple points.

In relation to private fostering, the Committee highlighted the Ofsted finding that a small number of private fostering arrangements did not meet regulation and asked how that would be improved. Nigel Chapman advised that there was a very small number of children who were subject to private fostering arrangements, at less than 10 in Brent. An issue across all local authorities was awareness raising of what private fostering was and ensuring everyone knew how to make referrals. As such, the low number of private fostering arrangements in Brent was likely to be higher in reality and there were likely more children out there being looked after by a relative that would not be considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To provide an update on adoption performance, progress and activity from Adopt London West.

Debbie Gabriel (Adopt London West) introduced the report, which updated the Committee on adoption performance data for the reporting period and the progress and activity of Adopt London West. The report included a summary of the psychological services that Adopt London West could provide as there was now an increased, more consolidated offer. Something new and different that Adopt London West had done during the reporting period was the drama group that had ran throughout October which had been well attended with 10 young people attending every day of the programme. As a result of that success another drama group would run in May. Adopt London had also been working on the Black Adopters Project and had hosted a theory of change workshop, which Councillors Collymore and Gbajumo had attended. Debbie Gabriel thanked the councillors for attending as it was unusual to have councillor engagement to that extent at events and this had been appreciated by the whole project group. Adopt London West’s partnership board had agreed to extend the contract with Kinship, providing kinship carers with tailored support. In concluding the introduction, she highlighted that Adopt London West had been very pleased with Ofsted’s positive comments that the relationship between Brent and Adopt London West worked well and that the arrangements and bespoke offer for special guardians in particular were good.

Councillor Gbajumo spoke on the Black Adopters Project event she had attended, confirming that there had been a very good turnout where they had heard from some professors. During the workshop, she had raised the theory that there was a tendency to believe two adults were needed to adopt, but a single person was able to adopt if they fulfilled the criteria. Debbie Gabriel agreed, confirming that there were a number of singles who were in the process of an assessment, particularly post-covid with many singles reaching middle ages and re-evaluating their life and goals. The previous month, Adopt London West had approved 3 single women.

The Committee were advised that the financial aspect was a challenge to many looking to adopt, including housing. This was not something Adopt London West could change but they were looking at targeting directly and encouraging people to be open and honest about their financial situation early on in the process so that financial offers could be made, for example through an adoption allowance. Having said that, the bigger issues around housing would remain. These factors would be looked at in detail and included in the next report.

The Committee asked whether there were any communities where there was a shortage of adopters, and heard that there was a shortage of Black adopters. There were many Asian adopters but few Asian children to adopt.

The Committee felt that early permanence placements was a good initiative, and asked whether the young people ended up staying on in those early placements. Debbie Gabriel confirmed that regionally, for Adopt London West, all children and young people had remained in their early permanence placement, but that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To provide an overview 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, which detailed the activity of Brent’s fostering service from 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023. She advised the Committee that the priorities for the service moving forward were the recruitment and assessment of foster carers. The service was currently reviewing the marketing and recruitment strategy and setting targets for the new year, and lots of work had taken place around foster carer retention, including looking at the package of support and allowances. The service was also developing it’s kinship carer work and community space.

Elena Muller (Service Manager – LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) advised that the service was trying to engage with the kinship community and bring them on board. Brent was very fortunate to have a very vocal and passionate representative from the kinship carer community who was advocating for kinship carers and helped to organise some forums for kinship carers. The forums had helped the service hear what kinship carers found helpful and what else was needed in the way services were provided. As a result of those sessions a meeting with the web design team was arranged to look at how the community perceived the service and how the service responded to their needs at the first port of call. Councillor Grahl hoped that the service could look to other areas for best practice in relation to kinship carers, such as Liverpool who had recently developed a Kinship Charter.

In relation to training, the Committee heard that all training had moved online during Covid. The choice of online was still the preferred option but the service still made sure to offer a mix and wanted a balance so that as many people as possible could benefit from training. The figures in the report on uptake were positive and that continued to improve. In addition, the service was listening to feedback about what carers wanted to learn and alongside their core offer had additional options, such as adolescent mental health and contextual safeguarding which were in high demand. The service had started to engage with what children and young people thought would be helpful to include in training, and there was an ongoing project where young people were now part of educating foster carers and delivering some of that training.

The Committee felt that it would be good to have training for councillors on the issues around fostering and adoption. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) highlighted that it was ‘Fostering Fortnight’ in May and some communications could be disseminated to councillors to invite them to some of those events.

As no further issues were raised, the Committee RESOLVED:

i)              To note the report.

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.