Agenda item

Purpose: To update and inform on our progress of West Berkshire ensuring good placement sufficiency and stability for our Looked After Children and Care leavers and the challenges we currently face in ensuring good outcomes are achieved and good care is delivered.

Mary-Anne Cosgrove introduced her report to Members and advised that she managed the Children in Care Team, Family Placement Team and Leaving Care Team. She also worked closely with front facing teams within the service to consider processes which could lead to children being placed in care. Members heard that the report detailed the local need and plans in place to meet those needs. However, she stressed that it was not always possible to predict the demand on services so demand was forecasted based on the information the services had available to them.

The Committee was directed to Appendix A (Placement Sufficiency and Stability Report) which was due for final sign off in December 2016. Members heard that West Berkshire District Council served a population of 155,500 people. Of these almost 40,000 were children aged between 0 and 19 years.

The national Census indicated that the majority of the population living in West Berkshire was White British (91.2%). The next largest ethnic group was Other White, such as White European. There was a lower proportion of people from all ethnic minority groups living in West Berkshire than there were nationally and in the South East Region.

Of West Berkshire residents, as a whole, 5% defined themselves as coming from a black or minority ethnic (BME) background compared to 14% of people in England.

Mary-Anne Cosgrove stated that it is a District of contrasts, being one of the most affluent areas in the country yet with some communities experiencing high levels of deprivation.

In terms of Looked After Children, Members were informed that the number had decreased in the last year from 175 children to 155. The largest group of children was aged between 10 and 15 years old. Mary-Anne Cosgrove advised that this age range tended to include children with detachment issues and complex behavioural challenges.

In the last 12 to 18 months there had been a focus on ensuring children did not drift in care. All children accommodated under section 20 had their cases reviewed and for many the Local Authority made the decision to issue care proceedings to secure the children’s futures. Mary-Anne Cosgrove stated that there were concerns that the use of Section 20 to accommodate children had been misused by Local Authorities. However, the review ensured that the childrens’ needs were prioritised correctly. Members heard that the degree of parental responsibility held by the local authority was determined by the child’s legal status.

The Committee was advised that, wherever appropriate, the service would look to secure adoptive parents because this provided stable and permanent family surroundings. However, on occasions some children may be assessed as not being able to be adopted (perhaps due to age or individual needs). In these cases the team would look at permanency planning which offered benefits such as contact with siblings and parental responsibility.

West Berkshire was considered to have a healthy number of foster carers in place, although the demand for foster placements continue to be met by in-house carers and independent providers. Mary-Anne Cosgrove explained that, in some cases, the foster parents might be assessed as appropriate adoptive parents and in these cases the team would provide emotional support to help them through the process.

David Lowe stated at this point that the report failed to mention budgets in any form. It was suggested that this would be useful information which would help the Committee understand service pressures in an attempt to reach ‘Good’ according to Ofsted. Rachael Wardell advised that last year had been a difficult period for the service in terms of placement costs. Previously the costs had been offset by other areas within the directorate but had been reviewed and budgets altered in order to better reflect anticipated spend. Also, the service introduced a Risk Fund in order that unexpected increases in demand could be managed. Rachael Wardell stated that she was highly confident that the budget was better set going forward. Furthermore, the service was seeing a decrease in the number of Looked After Children due to the great work of preventative and support systems in place. Mary-Anne Cosgrove advised Members that the team reviewed their budgets on a bi-weekly basis and these were also subjected to regular scrutiny.

In response to questions asked about the decreased number of Looked After Children, Rachael Wardell explained that the service was pleased to see numbers reduce but only when it was safe to do so. She did not allow bad practice in order to meet corporate targets – safeguarding children was paramount.

Members heard that the service continued to support young adults leaving care and the challenges these young adults faced in terms of access to ongoing support and advice.

In response to questions asked Mary-Anne Cosgrove advised that the Strategy was supported by a number of programme boards and project plans of which they had agreed timescales and deadlines for tasks. Members were advised that a Project Delivery Plan would be shared with the Committee. Councillor Carol Jackson- Doerge stated that it would be useful to also understand the external influences which could affect the progress of tasks.

Councillor Richard Somner stated that the Committee would benefit from seeing the external factors and risks associated with the delivery plan and this would help determine where Scrutiny was best placed to assist.

Resolved that:

1. Members would receive a Project Delivery Plan which supported the overarching Strategy.