(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)

To receive disclosures of interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

Notes:

(1)       Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct.  Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(2)       Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them.  A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

(3)       Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.

(4)       Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.

                                                                        (Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

In the interests of transparency, Councillor D Smith noted that he was a trustee of Canterbury Imagination Library (Minute 19 refers).

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Sheila Farnhill - 01274 432268)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

The Deputy Director - Education, Employment and Skills will submit a report (Document “G”) which provides an interim summary of the educational attainment of looked after children in the Bradford district.  The report relates to those children and young people of school age who had been in care for one year or more on 31 March 2016. The report explains that a further comprehensive report will be presented once the validated national data is published in the Spring term.

The report also provides an update on the work of the Virtual School.

Recommended –

(1)       That Document “G” be noted.

(2)       That a further report be submitted to the Panel once the published data is received from the Department for Education.         

(Ken Poucher – 01274 439623)

The Deputy Director - Education, Employment and Skills submitted a report (Document “G”) which provided an interim summary of the educational attainment of looked after children (LAC) in the Bradford district. The report related to those children and young people of school age who had been in care for one year or more on 31 March 2016. The report explained that a further comprehensive report would be presented once the validated national data was published in the Spring term.

The report also provided an update on the work of the Virtual School (VS).

In presenting the report the Virtual School Head highlighted the following points:

·         The Virtual School now came under the responsibility of the Deputy Director – Education, Employment and Skills.

·         In terms of the methodology of assessment, although the Foundation stage had remained the same that for the other key stages had changed which meant that the results were not directly comparable with statistics from previous years.

·         The percentage of those achieving a Good Level of Development (GLD) at Early Years Foundation Stage was rising.  Although this was still too low it was noted that the cohort was only small.  The main issue for this age group was the communication and language element and this was an area to be worked on. All five elements (Communication and Language/ Personal, Social and Emotional/ Physical Development/ Literacy/ Mathematics) contributed to the overall performance outcome for each child.

·         For KS1 the assessment of GLD focused on when children reached the ‘age expected standard’ in Reading, Writing and Maths.

·         In terms of reading the percentage for LAC was close to that recorded for all Bradford children. The weakest subject, in this age range, was writing.

·         The overall progress achieved by the current KS1 children from their performance at Foundation stage was excellent.

·         KS2  performance was measured in terms of reaching the ‘age expected standard’ in Reading, Writing, Maths and Grammar, and Punctuation and Spelling.  The percentage of LAC achieving the standard in combined reading, writing and maths was well below the level of their peers in Bradford.

·         In terms of value added progress scores, which indicated the progress of pupils from one key stage to the next, the weakest subject was reading (this was reflected nationally) and the strongest writing.

·         Attainment for KS4 was now measured across 8 qualifications with double weighting given to English and Maths.  The combined score for LAC was 31%, with Bradford children overall being 45.4% and nationally 48.2%

·         Figures were given on the number of children within each cohort with an EHC (Education, Health and Care) Plan, SEN (Special Educational Needs) support, FSM (Free School Meals) or who were considered to be disadvantaged.

·         Details were also given in respect of the Associate Programme being run by the VS which allowed rapid intervention to be provided for individual children as and when needed.  This had proved to be very successful and further appointments to the Associate role were to be progressed.  Positive feedback had been forthcoming  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

A report will be presented by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) (Document “H”) in relation to the work of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service and the Annual Report which is required to be produced under the IRO Regulations.  The Annual Report provides evidence in respect of the effectiveness of the service, examines the quality of the reviews offered to young people and sets targets for the future development of the service.

Recommended –

(1)       That the Corporate Parenting Panel notes:

(i)         The work undertaken by the Independent Reviewing Officer Service and its ongoing role in providing robust and challenging reviews of all Care Plans.

(ii)        The improvements achieved over the last twelve months in terms of children’s participation, the continued improvement in timeliness and the successful introduction of a quality assurance process for the service.

(iii)       The contribution made and value added by the Independent Reviewing Officer Service through the reporting of quality assurance findings to the Strategic Leadership Management Group.

(iv)      The continuation of good collaborative working arrangements with social work teams and partner agencies in order to achieve the best outcomes for Bradford’s Looked After Children.

(v)       That the Independent Reviewing Officer Service Annual Report will be produced in December to synchronise with the Corporate Parenting Panel’s Work Plan.

(2)       That the Service’s Work Plan for 2016/17, as set out in the Annual Report, be endorsed.

(Imran Cheema – 01274 437915)

A report was presented by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) (Document “H”) in relation to the work of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service and its Annual Report which was required to be produced under the IRO Regulations.  The Annual Report provided evidence in respect of the effectiveness of the service, examined the quality of the reviews offered to young people and set targets for the future development of the service.

The IRO Manager highlighted following points:

·         The figure for the number of looked after children (LAC) had been 941 as at 3 January 2017; this was an increase on the figure for the previous year.

·         The numbers entering and leaving care had been similar to the figures for the previous year.

·         There had been a significant decrease in the numbers exiting care in 2016.

·         The numbers of Interim Care Orders, Section 20 voluntary arrangements and Special Guardianship Orders.

·         There had been a significant decrease in the numbers placed for adoption. This reflected the national trend.

·         Placement with parents had increased slightly as had placements with family and friends.

·         The Service had carried out over 2500 reviews during the period April 2015 to December 2016, of which 98% had been completed within the relevant timescale despite increasing caseloads and staff changes.  Recruitment was in process to replace officers who had retired.

·         Positive feedback had been received from young people.

·         The Audit Grading System was now aligned with Ofsted requirements and this information  was being used in sufficiency reports.

The following responses were given to questions from Members:

·         Details were outlined in respect of the two IRO challenges that had escalated to Formal Dispute Resolution and it was noted that these had arisen as a result of matters of process not serious failures.

·         In terms of the statistics for ‘feeling safe’ this could be a matter of interpretation for the particular child for example it could be that they had had an issue at school or elsewhere outside the home. It depended what a child was worried about and what was relevant to them at that point in time.  Particular examples could be made available to Members to offer reassurance if they wished.

·         The uptake of Viewpoint (as a method of recording the views of young people) was slightly down on last year. A User Group was looking at ways to drive this forward.  It tended to be more popular with younger people and was now more accessible due to the introduction of an App. The content had recently been updated in consultation with the CICC.  It was thought that if children started using Viewpoint at an earlier stage they would be more likely to continue as they got older.

·         There was no statutory requirement for IROs to meet with a young person separately to the review meeting but it was considered to be good practice.

·         Viewpoint was not the only method of participation for LAC.  Many of the older young people preferred to attend the review meetings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

A report will be submitted by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) in relation to the independent monitoring and quality assurance of the district’s Residential Children’s Homes, in accordance with Regulation 44 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, and the importance of the role of Elected Members in this process (Document “I”).

Recommended –

That each Member of the Corporate Parenting Panel be requested to participate in three unannounced monitoring visits of residential and respite homes per annum.

(Suzanne Lythgow – 07582 100936)

A report was submitted by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) in relation to the independent monitoring and quality assurance of the district’s Residential Children’s Homes, in accordance with Regulation 44 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. The report stressed the importance of the role of Elected Members in this process (Document “I”).

In presenting the report the following points were highlighted by the Quality Assurance Manager:

·         There were eleven homes and the role of the Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) was to visit each on a monthly basis with a specific emphasis on a number of  key areas.  The aim was to provide support for the homes and to ensure the ‘care of the child’ and that they were prepared with the necessary skills and documentation for Ofsted inspection.

·         Each visit was very thorough and would take approximately 4 and a half hours.  The QAM would also facilitate visits by Elected Members and the aim was to undertake 3 visits per annum per home.  Members’ visits were focussed on engagement with the young people and trying to ensure that their views were heard.  Members were asked to form a judgement on the quality of the care at that home for the young people across a range of aspects. They could flag up any concerns and would provide additional scrutiny and challenge.

·         New regulations had been introduced in 2015 and there was now further emphasis on accountability in the inspection framework.

·         Monthly reports were sent to the manager of each home with copies to Ofsted and the responsible individual, who had responsibility for the overall supervision of the homes.

·         Accessing learning was a very important issue.  Ofsted would look at the starting point for each child/young person and the progress that they had made.

·         In 2014 a higher requirement had been introduced for the ‘outstanding’ classification. Since this time there had been a decline in the proportion of ‘outstanding’ judgements received but there was a high level of ‘good’ with one home ‘requiring improvement’. Overall it was considered that the position was positive.

·         It should be borne in mind that there was a need to ensure that the homes were flexible in meeting the needs of their young people and an Ofsted inspection was just a snapshot on one particular day.

She responded to questions:

·         Ofsted also took account of the regular monitoring reports in their assessments.

·         The judgement was based on three areas. The ‘requiring improvement’ judgement had arisen as a result of a technicality not associated wiith the quality of care provided at that home and systems had been put in place to ensure that the same issue did not arise again.

·         Any best practice identified as a result of the monitoring process was recommended and shared to others but the QAM’s position meant that she had to be independent of the Children’s Social Care Service and had no influence over how any recommendations might be implemented.

·         In terms of comparison with other authorities; although no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

At the meeting of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 6 October 2016, consideration was given to a report of the Strategic Director – Children’s Services in relation to the arrangements that the Council and its partners have in place to safeguard against Child Sexual Exploitation.  The Committee resolved, amongst other things;

‘That the Corporate Parenting Panel looks into the number of children being placed in care in Bradford from outside the district and any emerging issues.’

A report of the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care)(Document “J”) is now submitted for Member’s consideration.

(Jill Hudson – 01274 434511)

At the meeting of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 6 October 2016, consideration had been given to a report of the Strategic Director – Children’s Services in relation to the arrangements that the Council and its partners had in place to safeguard against Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). The Committee resolved, amongst other things;

‘That the Corporate Parenting Panel looks into the number of children being placed in care in Bradford from outside the district and any emerging issues.’

A report of the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care)(Document “J”) was therefore submitted for Members’ consideration.

It was explained that this recommendation had arisen due to a concern expressed by a Member of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of the responsibility of this Authority and its ability to make checks with the same level of robustness for any young people  who had been placed in Bradford from outside the district as was done for the Authority’s own looked after children.

An overview of the CSE team was given and it was noted that there had been a significant increase in staffing since the last report to the Panel. It was explained that:

·         If a child looked after by another authority was placed in the Bradford district then the responsibility for that child remained with the placing authority.  However any child that was placed in Bradford and being at risk would receive the same response as any other child in terms of going missing or CSE.  They would be discussed on a daily basis just as any other child and if they went missing attempts would be made to locate them and advice and support offered to them. There was a statutory duty on the placing authority to inform the authority where the child was being placed, albeit that this did not always happen. Each child would be flagged on the system including information on where they were from and their risk factors.  If a child was from within West Yorkshire the West Yorkshire Risk Assessment Tool would be used; if from further afield then the tool for the authority concerned would be used and the CSE Team would assist with the development of a risk management plan.

·         The CSE Team visited private providers and foster carers to offer support, training and advice and they also worked closely with the residential homes.

The following responses were given to questions:

·         It was believed that approximately 80 children or young people from outside the district were currently placed in Bradford only a proportion of whom would be at risk of going missing or CSE.

·         All the young people in residential care were Bradford children.

·         Each looked after child in Bradford with a social worker had an active open case; if a child placed from outside the authority did not have an active open case there was still a sub-section specifically dedicated to recording information relevant to CSE or going missing.

·         Information was shared with other authorities.

·         The numbers of children  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Panel’s Work Plan for 2016/17 is submitted for consideration    (Document “K”).

(Jim Hopkinson - 1274 432904)

Resolved –

That the following items be added to the Work Plan:

Regulation 44 Visits Review

Education Outcomes

ACTION:       Deputy Director – Children’s Social Care