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.

None.

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 17 July 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 a Fun Day at the end of the summer holidays with young people and their carers. There had been activities for younger children to participate in and it had been good to see everyone interacting with each other. J had been involved in recent interviews for a new Participation and Engagement Manager. The new Bright Spots Survey would be launched soon.

S (Care Leavers in Action) explained that she had been working with the London Children in Care Council on the Pan-London Care Leavers Compact where they had considered the benefits of recognising being care experienced as a protected characteristic. She thought that some children in care and care leavers may benefit from this, such as being guaranteed an interview when they applied for jobs, but older care leavers were conflicted as to whether this would have an impact or whether it would be a ‘tick box’ exercise because it would not be protected by law. She thought the potential benefits outweighed the negatives.

S asked whether the Council had considered any sessions with care leavers around voting and voter ID, particularly in relation to local democracy and politics. She highlighted that many care leavers may not know much about the political landscape including how to register to vote or that voter ID was now required. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) highlighted that Brent Youth Parliament had been looking at voting as an issue to promote, particularly for 17-year-olds becoming 18 soon. This would include awareness of how to register to vote in the first place and information on voter ID. He suggested a session with Care Leavers in Action could take place to get higher numbers of young people registering to vote.

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 whether the new half price bus and travel card from TfL for 18–24-year-olds would make a difference to care leavers. K highlighted that she currently spent around £15 per day on travel to get to work, which sometimes came out of her savings to pay for, so this would make a big difference to her daily travel expenses. J agreed, explaining that he travelled by bus mainly which could add up and sometimes he would need to take money from another bill to pay for travel. CLIA asked whether the travel subsidy that was offered through Brent’s Care Leaver Charter would continue with the new TfL initiative, but officers were unsure how it would work as they had not yet seen the detail from the GLA. 

The Committee asked how CLIA felt about the rent deposit and housing deposit scheme proposed in the Pan-London Care Compact. For some care leavers, they were still in semi-independent provision, but this commitment would affect them in the near future. One care leaver  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To provide an overview of participation activity for care experienced children and young people in 2022-23 and demonstrate how feedback from care experienced young people informs practice and service development.

Sonya Kalyniak (Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance, Brent Council) introduced the report, which provided an overview of participation activity for care experienced children and young people in 2022-23. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

·         One of the key achievements of the reporting year was that young people had been trained as interviewers and participated in the interviews of key members of staff, including the Chief Executive and Director of Children and Young People.

·         The Council had hosted a Pride of Brent Youth Awards ceremony with members of Care in Action (CIA) and Care Leavers in Action (CLIA) being both part of the judging panel and receiving awards.

·         A staff conference which had included Brent Care Journeys had involved different multi-media presentations from young people for them to express their experience of being in care, and 400 people saw those visual presentations which included a moving dance production.

·         The service had been considering how Brent Care Journeys ways of working could be incorporated into future service design when the partnership came to an end in early 2025.

·         The Council would be starting a new round of Bright Spots surveys in collaboration with the University of Oxford and Coram Voice, which would be the third time using the tool meaning it would yield some comparable data and results. Those results were then used for CIA and CLIA to advocate on behalf of other young people. The previous round had found that it was not always easy to build relationships with foster carers when a child first entered care, and so the groups had created a leaflet of ‘dos and don’ts’ for foster carers, which they had now developed into training that they would deliver.

·         It was highlighted that there had been several changes in Participation Workers over the past 6-12 months, which had been challenging for CIA and CLIA because that work was very relationship focused. The service was working hard to get more permanent recruitment into those teams and had now recruited a Participation Manager who had already been involved in participation work in Brent and had been endorsed by CLIA representatives.

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

The Committee asked whether Brent Care Journeys would be continued past the end of its partnership in 2025. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) explained that Brent Care Journeys was a partnership with Barnardo’s but not a contract so was a slightly different way of working. The Council had a strong relationship with Barnardo’s and worked with them in a number of other areas such as the Family Wellbeing Centres. As such, the Council was hoping this was not the end of Brent Care Journeys and was in conversations as to what that provision would look like beyond 2025 in its evolved state. 

The Committee noted that the report detailed the disruptive nature of changes in children’s social workers, and asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To provide information about the Pan London Care Leavers Compact and to update members on the Council’s progress against the Compact and areas of development during 2023-24.

Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the report which informed the Corporate Parenting Committee of the Pan London Care Leavers Compact and the Council’s progress against the Compact. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following points:

• London local authorities were all being asked to make 6 commitments to London’s care leavers by the end of December 2023.These were five housing related positions and an additional commitment relating to whole council support of care leavers through membership of the Care Leavers Covenant. The Compact aimed to maximise consistency and quality in the local offers of support from local authorities.
• The report set out each commitment, including the current position in Brent for each of those. The Council was meeting most key elements of the Covenant, for example, Brent had implemented a Council Tax Scheme in 2018 waiving the requirement of Brent care leavers to pay council tax. 
• Brent Council ensured care leavers were offered supported accommodation until they felt ready for their own tenancy which ensured no care leaver was found intentionally homeless. Brent was the only Council still offering social housing tenancies to care experienced young people.
• The Council did not currently offer a rent deposit scheme and would look at that as part of the work on the Pan-London Compact. Any proposals would be presented to senior managers. 
• In relation to adopting the principle that care leavers up to the age of 25 should be placed in ‘priority need’ under homelessness legislation, Brent Council had not officially adopted that principle, but in practice there was close working between the Council’s Housing Need Service and Looked After Children and Permanency Service through the joint protocol. That protocol would be revised during the current financial year.
• The Committee may ask the Council to do more work to present a position on the possibility of recognising being care experienced as a protected characteristic. In law, it did not appear in the Equalities Act, so it was not likely to be legally enforceable and would be more of an intent towards care leavers.

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

S (Care Leavers in Action) had been involved at a London level in developing the proposed Compact, which had been a long process involving a lot of research. She had found it an interesting experience to be involved in, particularly in hearing what other local authorities offered as part of their local offer. Personally, S was conflicted around recognising care experience as a protected characteristic as she was concerned it may turn into a ‘tick box’ exercise, but she did see benefits to this and it if a care leaver did not want to then they did not have to disclose their status.

The Committee asked whether there had been any further work around lobbying at a national level for the rights of care leavers. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To provide information 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, which provided information on the general management of the in-house fostering service and how it was achieving good outcomes for children. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

• Fostering fortnight had taken place, focused on recruitment of foster carers, and there had been some follow up events throughout the summer. These had proved productive in terms of raising awareness and increasing enquiries.
• A fostering walk had taken place in Gladstone Park which ended with a cream tea for foster carers and had been a nice celebration event.
• There were several assessments in progress, with 5 at Stage 1 and 4 at Stage 2 which was promising and reinforced the belief that going out to the community through events was beneficial.
• The report had new sections focused on kinship to give kinship carers a more prominent profile. Some recent kinship activity involved a funday during kinship care week.
• The Council had bid for funding from the DfE for recruitment and retention of foster carers jointly with West London and had been successful. The Council was now in the process of starting a Fostering Recruitment Hub with West London which was being led by Hammersmith and Fulham. As part of that project, a model of support known as ‘mockingbird’ was being piloted, where foster carers supported each other through self-sufficient support clusters.

In considering the reports, the following points were raised:

The Committee asked what the difference between kinship carers and foster carers was. Kelli Eboji explained that if a child was placed in an emergency placement with their kin and that kin then became a carer then they would only receive a basic allowance because they would not yet have been to Foster Panel for approval. The connected person did not need to be a blood relative but connected to the child in some way. Once that carer had been approved at Foster Panel then they would get a slight increase in the fostering allowance they were paid. The fostering allowance was calculated on an age basis and had 4 tiers with 3 levels, including an enhanced rate for children with additional needs. In terms of support, kinship carers were entitled to the same level of support as traditional foster carers, including an allocated social worker. 

The Committee asked whether the service had plans to bring more activity face to face instead of virtual, such as training, foster carer support groups and Foster Panel. Kelli Eboji highlighted the need for balance in this regard, as it was important that foster carers completed their training and foster carers could not always attend in-person training. The evidence showed that, generally, foster carers did attend online training as a preference to face to face, but the service did not want to stop face to face training completely. The service was clear with foster carers on the expectations for them to undertake training, but having that flexibility was important, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To provide information on adoption performance, progress and activity of Adopt London West.

Debbie Gabriel (Adopt London West) introduced the report, which provided both a six-monthly update and the Adopt London West annual report of adoption activity. In introducing the report, she highlighted the following key points:

• Performance regarding children’s timescales and timeliness of the adoption pathway was strong against national data. Brent’s individual performance was detailed in the report.
• Placement of children with Adopt London West adopters in Brent had not performed as strongly in the annual report year. It was highlighted that Adopt London West recruited adopters that they believed were suitable to adopt, but this did not always mean they were the right match for a particular child. That sometimes meant that where Adopt London West adopters were not happy to wait for a match, they might get approached by other regional adoption agencies looking to place their children with them. As such, there had only been 4 children placed with Adopt London West adopters in Brent the previous year. There had been measures put in place to focus that issue, and of the 3 children in Brent placed in the current year, 2 were placed with Adopt London West adopters, showing a stronger position than the previous year.
• Performance around recruitment was strong across Adopt London. Within a national context, Stage 1 was very lengthy and it was difficult to meet that timescale but all Adopt London agencies were doing well against that target.
• Adopt London West continued to have strong relationships with its partners.
• There had only been a small number of complaints received which all related to access to records which was a well-known challenge.

The Chair thanked Debbie Gabriel for her introduction and invited comments and questions from those present, with the following raised:

The Committee was pleased to see the high percentage of LGBTQ+ adopters outlined in section 7.1 of the report. The report had not mentioned the number of Black adopters that had been approved and the Committee asked whether there had been any. Debbie Gabriel explained that Adopt London West had not yet approved any entirely Black households within the current year but had approved some mixed ethnicity households. Debbie Gabriel provided further information on the Black Adopters Project that was currently underway. She highlighted that Black Adopters Project had been informed by a focus group of young people who gave clear messages about what they wanted and needed from the project, as well as a Steering Committee which had been informed by a working group of Black adopters established by We Are Family. Some of the pilot programmes focused on setting up regular opportunities for young people to come together socially. There was also a focus on influencing schools and a community engagement focus. It was agreed that the Committee could be provided with an update on the project in the next report.

In relation to the plans for DfE and Ofsted to pilot direct inspections of Regional Adoption Agencies with 6 agencies, the Committee was advised that it was not yet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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.