(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 must consider their interests, and act according to the following:

(2)       Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(3)       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. 

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

No declarations of interest were received.

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2022 be signed as a correct record (attached).

(Su Booth – 07814 073884)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 19 October and 7 December 2022 be signed as a correct record.

(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. 

(Su Booth – 07814 073884)

No requests to inspect reports or background papers were received.

The Programme Lead for the Child First West Yorkshire Diversion Pathfinder – Youth Justice Board will give a report to Members to inform them relating to the Child First West Yorkshire Diversion Pathfinder initiative that sees the partnership between Bradford Youth Justice Service and the Youth Justice Board who, as part of a pathfinder have created a diversionary model to divert children away from the criminal justice service.  Research has found that where a child is diverted away from the criminal justice system they achieve better outcomes and do not have the negative impact compared to those that would get a formal outcome.  In particular children who are being cared for by the local authority are over represented within the youth justice setting and this model is aimed to address this and ensure that all children regardless of their status get the right support at the right time. 

Recommended –

That the report be noted and Members are welcome to comment on its content.

(Philip Briggs – 07582 100299)

The Programme Lead for the Child First West Yorkshire Diversion Pathfinder – Youth Justice Board gave Members a presentation informing members of the initiative to create a diversionary model to divert children away from the criminal justice service.

Phil Briggs, Team Leader, Bradford Youth Justice Service (BYJS), said that research demonstrated that children who were taken to court for serious or multiple offences resulting in a criminal record had less positive outcomes than those who were diverted away from the courts.  Using Outcome 22[1], Chance To Change, the Child First West Yorkshire Diversion Pathfinder initiative enabled children and young people who engaged with the process to avoid a criminal record for low level offences, often committed through accident or poor judgement, and be supported to learn from what they had done and make amends.  The process was not a soft option: it included opportunities for restorative justice in all its forms and every effort was made to consult the victim, where the offence had a victim.

The Chance to Change model, which was being piloted in Bradford with the aim of rolling it out across West Yorkshire, recognised that children and young people might make more than one mistake.  It also recognised the particular vulnerability of Children Looked After (CLA) in light of the trauma they might have experienced and that, if they had been placed out of area, they might have no support in the Bradford area.  Each case was considered independently on its merits and on Child First principles.  Children were triaged to determine the best route to support their individual needs: in the case of CLA, this included working with the agencies that were supporting the child and identifying a single lead practitioner.  Effective liaison with all agencies involved with the child, and discussion with the child in question, were critical elements of the diversion model: this was not something that YJS could do on its own.

The Chance to Change model was currently in the Quality Assurance phase of its pilot, in which young people, carers and residential homes were being asked for feedback on their experiences.  The Panel was interested to hear that one care home had said that an incident between two staff members had been stopped by the intervention of a young person who had a history of challenging and violent behaviour: the young person had said that they did not think that the staff were making good choices.

Referring to the presentation, members asked about the reference at the bottom of the first substantive page to addressing disproportionality.  BYJS explained that, in a number of areas across the country, some communities of children – including CLA – were over-represented in the criminal justice system.  As found in the Lammy review[2], some communities lacked trust in the police and authority figures or would not engage with them.  A person who did not admit to the offence could not be given an out of court disposal.  Chance to Change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The report of the Director of Quality and Nursing West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (Bradford) (Document “D”) will be submitted to the Panel and will highlight the key aims, matters of legislation, the scope of the Children Looked After and Care Leavers Team and compares the numbers of children looked after per 10,000 with Bradford’s statistical neighbours. This report also provides some information about initial health assessments and review health assessments and provides some key areas of focus for 2022/23.

Recommended –

That Members consider the information provided within the report and are welcome to ask a question or raise a comment at the meeting to gain clarity or for assurance.  

(Dr Catherine Murray – 01274 237523)

The report of theDirector of Quality and Nursing West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (Bradford) (Document “D”) was submitted to the Panel and was taken as read.

Dr Murray, Consultant Paediatrician and Designated Doctor for Children Looked After, said that many Children Looked After (CLA) entered care with multiple and complex health and care needs.  The number of children entering care continued to increase more rapidly in Bradford than in its statistical neighbours, causing significant issues for the provision of care.

The remit of the West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board in relation to CLA health included carrying out Initial Health Assessments and reviews, completing adult fostering forms and providing adoption medical examinations.  Initial Health Assessments comprised the majority of the work and were intended to identify any health needs that had not been diagnosed prior to the young person entering care.

Initial Health Assessments must be carried out by a registered medical practitioner, traditionally a paediatrician.  Appointments lasted for one hour and were followed up by conversations with social workers and a substantial amount of paperwork.  As the number of children entering care increased, the NHS faced significant challenges in managing the load.  To address this, from March 2022 a cohort of General Practitioners had been trained up to undertake Initial Health Assessments.  The model was working well.  Weekly meetings were held with the nursing team to triage every child entering care, RAG[1] rate their needs and determine who should see them.

In common with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, the service was not meeting the statutory 20-day timeframe for conducting Initial Health Assessments.  However, through the increased capacity provided by training GPs to undertake the assessments, it was improving. 

A major concern was that 42% of children missed their appointments for Initial Health Assessments, which then had to be re-arranged.  The service was working with iAD/SRCP to identify and address the reasons for this.

Discussion

Replying to questions, health colleagues present said that the children and young people who missed appointments for Initial Health Assessments tended to be those placed at home with their parents and older young people who simply did not choose to attend.  A process was in place to remind young people, their carers and social workers of appointments, but a cohort still did not attend.

Asked whether failure to attend an Initial Health Assessment blocked other services for the young person, Dr Murray confirmed that it did: referrals could not be made and screening could not be arranged until the Initial Health Assessment had been completed.

Asked whether social workers and doctors made the importance and benefits of the Initial Health Assessment sufficiently clear to young people and their families, iDD/CSS said that there were a number of reasons why a child might be placed with their parents: for example, this might be done for a trial period following a period in care, or the courts might place the child back in their home when the local authority requested a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The report of the Strategic Director, Children’s Services (Document “E”) will be submitted to the Panel to inform Members in relation to the review undertaken by The National Safeguarding Panel following the very serious abuse and neglect suffered by a number of children with disabilities and complex needs whilst living in three private residential settings and the actions be to taken by every Director of Children’s Services.

Recommended –

That the information in the report be noted.

(Amandip Johal – 07773 248040)

The report of the Strategic Director, Children’s Services (Document “E”) was submitted to the Panel to inform Members in relation to the review undertaken by The National Safeguarding Panel following the very serious abuse and neglect suffered by a number of children with disabilities and complex needs whilst living in three private residential settings and the actions be to taken by every Director of Children’s Services.

iAD/SRCP referred to the national review into how and why a significant number of children with disabilities and complex needs came to suffer serious abuse and neglect whilst living in three privately provided residential settings in the Doncaster area.  In Phase 1 of its work, the panel undertaking the national review had asked every Director of Children’s Services to provide urgent assurances in relation to the progress, care and safety of children with disabilities and complex health needs who are placed in residential special schools registered as children’s homes.  The agenda paper set out the information that Bradford had sent to the National Panel on the three children who fell into this category in Bradford.  The information had been gathered from conversations with Independent Review Officers (IROs) and social workers to ensure that the young people in questions were happy in their settings, that their voices were heard, their needs met and any concerns addressed.  A response was awaited from the National Panel before any further action was taken.

Noting that the agenda paper indicated that it had been necessary to consult three separate systems to identify the three children in Bradford who had disabilities and complex health needs and who had been placed in residential special schools registered as children’s homes, members asked why it had not been possible to identify all such children through a single check.  iAD/SRCP said that this was a consequence of how establishments were recorded on the Council’s system. This had been picked up and addressed through the placement team.  Asked whether there was a single system that drew together all establishments, iAD/SRCP said that there was but that the team had cross-referenced it with other systems to ensure that all children had been identified and, though this cross-checking, had identified gaps.  Asked what action had been taken to plug these gaps, iAD/SRC said that they had stemmed from how the educational element of the homes’ provision had been recorded.  Panel members observed that the IRO would know the educational provision offered by the home and so, presumably, had had failed to record it on the system.  iAD/SRCP said that the IRO would not be expected to record this information: that was the responsibility of the placement team.

Members asked why a child with a disability, who lived in a home that addressed that disability, was not recorded on the same system as other children with disabilities living in homes that addressed their disability.  It did not inspire confidence that the Council had to interrogate three different systems to identify three such children.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.