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 Kennelly.

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 24 April 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 the group had seen Wicked at the Theatre and it had been nice to see a live show. The group hoped to do more theatre trips including to see Hamilton, and other different types of activities to cover a range of interests. The group had started planning the Summer Fun Day and would be having dinner the following week to discuss the role Care Leavers in Action (CLIA) would play in the planning of that. CLIA wanted to bring back mentoring between CLIA and CIA, which J had been part of when he was part of CIA many years ago. He felt it was a good opportunity to get to know each other, for CIA to learn from the experience of CLIA members and for CIA to feel confident in taking over when members of CLIA left. CLIA would be involved in some upcoming interview panels for job roles and J hoped to get CIA involved in interview panels in the future. J had also been involved in cooking lessons with Brent Care Journeys where they had learned to make desserts, including apple crumble and Eaton mess. J had been invited to Buckingham Palace with another care leaver which had been a good experience to see the gardens and meet the King. He concluded his update by informing the Committee that CLIA enjoyed the Hub where once a month they went to get food and meet each other with a member of staff present.

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 asked what other activities the group was looking to do. J replied that he would personally enjoy doing more outdoor activities such as camping or glamping. The Chair added that she had been in touch with OVO Arena about getting tickets for events for children in care and care leavers and she would follow that up in September in the hopes some tickets would be secured for future activities. J expressed he would be interested in travel projects that engaged in various activities such as training abroad or in other areas of the UK.

The Committee asked how J had found the mentoring scheme when he took part in it. He explained that his mentor had took part in Corporate Parenting Committee and J had accompanied him to that. As a result J had been able to get to know his mentor and become comfortable with other care leavers in the group, and was more comfortable in formal meetings such as Corporate Parenting Committee where he could talk without being nervous.

The Committee thanked the representatives for the updates and RESOLVED:

That the updates by the representatives of Care in Action/Care Leavers in Action be noted.

This report fulfils the Council’s statutory obligation to present an annual report to the Corporate Parenting Committee (CPC) on outcomes for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, in line with The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations (2010). The report provides a summary of the activity alongside strengths and areas for growth in supporting Looked After Children and Care Leavers in Brent.

Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the report, which presented the 2022-23 annual report on outcomes for looked after children and care leavers and a summary of the activity taking place. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

·         There was a total of 319 children in care in the reporting year compared to 341 the previous year which was a 7% decrease. She explained that this was a result of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) turning 18 during that period.

·         The Council had received positive feedback following its Ofsted ILACS Inspection in February 2023 regarding placement stability for children. There had been a reduction in movement of placement of approximately 3% in the reporting year.

·         Comments by the inspector stated that the Council had embedded permanency planning for children and achieved permanency for children without delay, and the Council was making strides with early permanency with Adopt London West (ALW).

·         There had been a lot of participation activity over the past 12 months, and the service intended to merge Brent Care Journeys and its Children in Care Council (Care in Action and Care Leavers in Action) into one single offer. Children valued the offer of those activities, particularly the hub, and there had been good success with the participation in the Grand Mentors scheme.

·         Priorities for the coming year were around stabilising and retaining workforce so that children could benefit from stable, long-term relationships. There was a continued focus on working with partners to improve health outcomes, particularly emotional wellbeing. The service envisaged future development work with Brent Care Journeys in anticipation of the end of the 5-year partnership with Barnardo’s and continued to engage young people in that work. Another priority was around improving accommodation pathways and independent development for care leavers. The Council was also reinvigorating life story work for children in care to help them understand their narratives for why they were in care.

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

The Committee asked for further information regarding the priority for staff retention. They asked whether staff were leaving due to feeling overworked. Kelli Eboji highlighted that the Council was working hard to ensure there was a competitive offer for staff. The Council had also broadened its options for recruitment, including looking internationally, and would now be welcoming a cohort of international staff over the next few months. In relation to the reasons staff left, she highlighted this was for a myriad of reasons but nothing specific. Following Covid, many staff relocated or moved to remote working which had impacted the workforce, particularly in London. Staff were not necessarily leaving due to money but because the type of work was very stressful and complex, and the workload was such that people did not want to do it anymore, particularly if there were other pressures in their home that made the pressure of the work incompatible. The Council was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To inform the Corporate Parenting Committee of the contributions of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) towards quality assurance and improvement of services for Looked After Children (LAC).

Sonya Kalyniak (Head of Quality Assurance and Safeguarding, Brent Council) introduced the report which informed the Corporate Parenting Committee of the contribution of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) to the quality assurance and improvement of services for looked after children (LAC). She informed the Committee that the IRO role was statutory to ensure LAC needs were fully met and that their care planning was progressing as it should. The report identified areas of practice strengths and weaknesses. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

• Brent had 2 in-house IROs who were permanent members of staff and commissioned the remainder of IROs to Aidhour. Aidhour had been contracted with Brent for over 20 years, meaning the IROs had been in place for a very long time and knew the children very well. Some IROs from Aidhourhad started to retire from their role so there had been some staff turnover and it was important to ensure there was sustained stability there. The service was looking at options to gradually bring more IROs in-house as it was seeing a lot of stability with in-house IROs presently.
• There was a strong focus on the advocacy service for IROs, who routinely checked that children and young people knew about advocacy and how it could support them. Brent’s Advocacy Services were provided by Coram Voice for LAC and care leavers, and they had exceeded their target specifications of providing 500 advocacy hours per year to 60 children. In the reporting year, they had provided 697 hours of advocacy support to 67 children and young people. This included advocacy for children with a child protection plan.
• The Ofsted ILACS Inspection had reviewed the IRO service in February 2023. The inspectors had found that most IROs were monitoring the progress of children’s plans, that actions were progressed and letters from IROs to children following review were child focused and easy to understand. However, the inspection had found that the consistency of those letters required improvement and there was a need to ensure children were active participants in their review.
• There was a lot of work being undertaking on participation and ensuring IROs found creative ways to ensure children engaged in their reviews. That work would continue into the next reporting year.
• Following the Ofsted ILACS Inspection, the service had done some in-depth audit work into some of the themes the inspection had found and put some improvement work in place which the service was now seeing.

The Chair thanked Sonya Kalyniak for her update and invited comments and questions from Committee members with the following raised:

The Committee asked why table 7 of the report indicated that over half of LAC did not participate in their review meeting. Sonya Kalyniak explained that the IRO would aim to speak to the child in advance of the review and make every effort to speak to the child, see them in person, offer advocacy support or speak to someone else who knew the child very well. The service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To inform the Corporate Parenting Committee of the work undertaken by the Brent Virtual School (BVS) and school results for Looked After Children in the 2021-2022 academic year. This report was delayed in being presented to the Corporate Parenting Committee due to the need for exam results to be ratified.

Sharon Buckby (Head of Inclusion and Brent Virtual School) introduced the report, which outlined the achievements for all children in care that had an assessment during the reporting year. She highlighted the following key points:

• There were 423 children and young people enrolled in BVS during the 2021-22 academic year.
• Priorities during 2021-2022 had been to train social workers on personal education plans (PEPs), measured through how well schools were using resources to improve the opportunities young people had. PEP work was high, with a 95% completion rate. The 5% of incomplete PEPs would likely be due to a placement move or change in education provision. 
• The service wanted to focus more on how teachers could utilise young people’s own interests for the PEPs rather than have a collective approach, and it was doing this through exploring enrichment provision.
• The attendance rate was high and almost equivalent to the cohort who were not looked after, and significantly higher than other local authorities. This was attributed to the joint work of foster carers, social workers and schools.
• BVS had ensured no child in care received a permanent exclusion. Where possible, education officers manage disruption occurring in school and Sharon Buckby had occasionally stepped in with the Head of the school to ensure any issues were resolved.
• There had been good feedback from Ofsted following the Ofsted ILACS inspection regarding how well BVS knew the children who were looked after and its focus on achievements.
• In relation to progress and attainment, Key Stage 2 had done very well and results were not dissimilar to mainstream cohorts. Generally, the longer a child was in care the better their educational achievements because they had stability and it was easier in Key Stages 1 and 2 to support young people into enrichment activities. It was found that attainment was lower for those who entered the care system late because their education had been disrupted and they lacked stability, so for Key Stage 3 and 4, those young people coming into care late had lower attainment in their GCSE results.
• There was an opportunity for BVS to support young people not going into education, employment and training by encouraging them to stay on into year 12 and 13, which were critical months in a young person’s long-term pathway and outcomes.
• A challenge for children who went into care late was issues around trauma and attachment and so a lot of work around mental health had been done. For example, a recent forum with designated teachers had looked at triggers and trauma and how to move forward, and the commissioned contract with WEST at the Anna Freud Centre delivered targeted intervention for young people and the family as a whole.
• BVS conducted direct interventions with the top 50 children of most concern who were likely to be excluded or had poor attendance and there was crossover there with the most vulnerable groups who were missing or known in relation to contextual safeguarding.

In considering the reports, 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.