Agenda item

(To receive a report by Janice Spencer, Assistant Director – Children’s Services, which enables the Panel to consider and comment on the key performance infromation for Quarter 1 2022/23)

Consideration was given to a report which enabled the Panel to consider and comment on the key performance information for Quarter 1 2022/23 which was relevant to the work of the Corporate Parenting Panel.

A full and detailed report covering the measures relevant to Children in Care (CiC) used by Children’s Services was contained in Appendix A to the report.  It was noted that there were 15 measures in total that related to CiC which were reported in Quarter 1, and of these 8 did not meet their target and two were ahead of the target set by the services.

Members were guided through the explanations for the targets not being met during this quarter and were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

• It was queried whether the Council was paying for private dental treatment, and if so, was there a group account.  It was confirmed that the Council had paid for private treatment where a child had been unable to access NHS treatment.  It was noted that NHS treatment was still able to be accessed, but it was a challenge to do this within the time frames that enabled the Council to meet the target.  It was emphasised that all children received dental help when it was needed.
• Fostering/adoption of children in care agenda 10 – 16 years old was slightly below target, and it was queried whether it was easier for younger children to be fostered.  It was noted that this measure mainly related to foster placements, and those that were in residential care needed to be in that setting.
• In relation to 16 – 17 year olds not engaging in learning, it was noted that performance was at 81%, and that young people were struggling to access learning, it was queried whether the responsibility for accessing learning was the council’s responsibility or the young person’s.  Officers highlighted that it would be more accurate to say that these young people were struggling to access education on a full-time basis, as many have not had consistent education before they came into care.  Whilst there was fantastic wraparound care provided, sometimes this was not enough
• In relation to Care leavers not in education, employment or training, it was queried what the Council could do differently, and officers advised that care leavers would continue to be supported and opportunities provided.  It was noted that it was important to remember that there were also other achievements that the young people would make which would be celebrated.
• It was important to note that the impacts of their life experiences did not always affect young people in the same way.  Some would come into care with a history of non-attendance at school.
• It was queried whether there were any geographical areas of the county where it was particularly difficult for young people to access education, employment or training, for example was availability of transport an issue?  Officers advised that they tried to find things which would engage the young person, such as work experience, and it was noted that additional resources would be provided where possible for those young people over 16 years of age.  Officers commented that would like see care leavers that did not achieve GCSE’s to be able to access apprenticeships. 
• It was commented that often children and young people in care could not learn to their full potential until they felt safe in their learning environment.
• It was highlighted that there were some remarkable children in care, and that it they were survivors, and due to the trauma some had experienced, just living was a daily challenge for them, and that over 50% were attending school was outstanding.  It was highlighted that children in care became ready for education at a later point in life, which was why leaving care support was extended until the age of 25.
• It was noted that there was no feedback in relation to young people in custody, and members were advised that the Youth Offending Board would be presenting a report to the Panel in the future.  However, it was also noted that often these were children who were not known to the local authority.
• Clarification was sought regarding the measure for the “Average time between the Local Authority receiving court authority to place a child and the Local Authority deciding on a match to an adoptive family”, and it was noted that this time was from the time the child came into care to the date they were adopted.
• It was noted that it had not been possible to move some children due to Covid-19, and then once moves were possible again, there needed to be an assessment to determine if it was safe to move the child as there were foster carers who were shielding.  It was noted that this would still have an effect on the following years figures as well.

(NOTE: Councillor K Cooke joined the meeting at 10.40am)

RESOLVED

That the performance information presented be noted.