Agenda item
Corporate Parenting Annual Report 2020-21
To provide the Corporate Parenting Annual Report for 2020-21 to the Corporate Parenting Committee.
Minutes:
The purpose of this report was to present an annual update to the Corporate Parenting Committee on outcomes for Looked After Children, in line with the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations (2010).
The Committee heard that the number of children in care currently looked after by Brent Council was 298, and officers were expecting a slight increase as the country moved out of restrictions. The current number of care leavers being supported was 440 compared to 330 pre-pandemic, and cases had not been closed for young people struggling with isolation and loneliness even if normally those cases would have been closed. There had been a significant increase in the number of referrals and contacts to the Front Door with Covid-19 associated reasons. There was also an impact on young people waiting for decisions from the Home Office regarding their immigration status, as the Home Office had not made decisions. This meant young people had been left without clear status, therefore Brent was required to continue supporting those young people in semi-independent provision.
Onder Beter informed the Committee that, as discussed at a previous Committee meeting, the Home Office had placed a large number of adults seeking asylum within 3 different hotels in Brent, which had resulted in a number of those coming forward to claim to be under 18 years old and therefore classed as children. By law, if someone claimed to be under 18 years old then as a local authority Brent would be expected to accommodate them, in some cases with any dispute about age needing to be assessed. Onder Beter explained this put a lot of pressure on capacity and they had received 27 referrals within the past 7-8 months from those seeking asylum claiming to be children. Some of those had been accommodated where the Council had agreed with their claimed age after initial screening or a full age assessment. Due to the financial implications, 2 locum lawyers had been recruited to assist the Council through potential judicial reviews, and there was agreement to recruit 2 additional social workers to conduct age assessments. When those who were judged to be children became looked after they were often 16-17 years old and therefore soon to become care leavers, and the Council had around 130 young people who they supported as care leavers who were former unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC).
The Committee queried the communications process between the Home Office and Council when those seeking asylum were placed in the Borough. Onder Beter confirmed that the Council were being told now, but when the first hotel had been commissioned they had not been informed. The Council now had weekly reports detailing all young people and families placed in the Borough, including children of families who would need school places. It was important to inform health colleagues also.
In terms of the Home Office policy, Nigel Chapman (Operational Director Integration and Improved Outcomes, Brent Council) explained the Home Office were trying to find space for adults and, due to the lack of tourism in Wembley during the pandemic, hotels had been available. He advised that there was pressure at entry points, giving the example of a big cohort of people arriving the previous day in Kent, so felt the Home Office’s ability to make quick and accurate decisions was limited. Age assessment at the point of entry was crucial and there were not enough assessors in the country nationally. Gail Tolley (Strategic Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) added that the national transfer scheme was voluntary, but a significant number of local authorities were not participating. Brent were operating on a rota taking children through that system, and had dipped below the 0.07% nationally agreed as they did not take children directly due to the proportion of those individuals placed by the Home Office that would come forward to be classed as children that the Council had planned for. She added that Brent would soon be over the 0.07% agreed for under 18s and significantly over for care leavers.
In terms of the financial impact that the placement of asylum seekers was having, Onder Beter advised that the Home Office did not provide enough financial support to cover the costs. There was financial pressure on the placement budget for Looked After Children, and the 27 individuals recently assessed generated a large amount of work, meaning there was pressure on staffing and capacity, dealing with unplanned arrivals, legal issues and the logistics within the system. He highlighted that Brent had a very open minded approach and understood the trauma some people seeking asylum would have experienced, which could sometimes make it more difficult to undertake an age assessment due to their needs. There was a need to ensure culturally sensitive practice, for example through the use of interpreters.
With regard to placement stability, the Committee noted the positive performance detailed in the report. As a Council, it felt that the department had done a large amount of work through the 3 lockdowns and made a lot of improvements, with placement stability one of them. The number of children who stayed in placements for over 2 and a half years had seen a significant improvement. The Committee highlighted other Boroughs had experienced some placement breakdowns so it was positive this had not been the case in Brent.
The Committee asked for further context to paragraph 5.1, which stated that the number of children becoming looked after through voluntary agreement with parents had decreased by 36% compared to the previous year. Nigel Chapman advised one particular reason for this was due to UASCs being accommodated under Section 20. He felt the figure also reflected the approach the Council had taken to be more robust to actively seek care proceedings if it was felt a situation was not resolving where the Council had an agreement with the family. It also reflected the age of the care population.
The Committee raised paragraph 5.2 of the report to officers attention, asking if the statement meant that Brent were doing whatever it took, and paying whatever they could, to keep children in Brent, or whether Brent would need to place some young people out of Borough due to the lack of placement. They emphasised that the Council should not be being priced out of its own Borough. Onder Beter advised that the ambition was definitely to do the utmost to place children locally when it was in their best interest, but the Committee were right to highlight insufficient placements which would mean a proportion of children may not be able to remain local. This would be strongly connected to their complex needs and the risks involved. Officers agreed to look at the phrasing of the statement. Gail Tolley explained that a proportion of late entrants to care were gang related therefore children would be placed out of Borough for safety reasons, but there were children they would want to place in Brent who they could not. Officers would provide an update on this as a matter arising for the next Committee meeting.
The Committee queried the focus on finding a co-ordinator for CAMHS outside of Brent and why that had not also been a focus within Brent, which had a large waiting list. Onder Beter advised that the position for an out of Borough CAMHS co-ordinator was due to be filled 2 years ago and it had taken 2 years for the CCG to appoint to the position. He advised the Committee it had been valuable to have someone who was now doing hands on work for children where the Council had been concerned about their clinical need. Onder Beter agreed that assessments for LAC in Brent by CAMHS also needed to be prioritised, and assured the Committee local CAMHS was high on the agenda of the Brent Children’s Trust and the Joint Commissioning Group meetings. Gail Tolley added that the topic of CAMHS was the substantive item on the Children’s Trust agenda that day.
RESOLVED:
i) To note the report.
Supporting documents:
- 9. Annual Corporate Parenting Report April 2020 - March 2021, item 9. PDF 875 KB
- 9a. Appendix 1 - Brent's Promise to Looked After Children, item 9. PDF 3 MB
- 9b. Appendix 2 - Brent Care Leavers' Charter, item 9. PDF 5 MB
- 9c. Appendix 3 - Brent Local Offer for Care Leavers 2020-2022, item 9. PDF 417 KB