The Assistant Director (Performance, Commissioning & Partnerships) will submit a report (Document “A”) which sets out the numbers of children; services offered; challenges and sufficiency plans.

 

Recommended –

 

The views of the Panel on the option set out in Section 9 of Document “A” are requested. 

(David Byrom - 01274 432986)

 

The Local Authority had a duty to secure, so far as reasonably practicable, sufficient accommodation within its area to meet the need of children whose circumstances were such that it would be consistent with their welfare for them to be provided with accommodation in the local authority area. This was referred to as ‘the sufficiency duty’.

 

The Assistant Director (Performance, Commissioning & Partnerships) submitted a report (Document “A”) which set out the numbers of children; services offered; challenges and sufficiency plans.

 

Members were informed that:

 

·         There had been a significant rise in the number of Children Looked After (CLA) over the last 15 months; the current number of CLA was 1202.

 

·         This was a 23.2% increase, of this increase 15.8% were aged between   10-17.

 

·         There was a good level of own provision compared to purchased provision; 63% of provision of accommodation for CLA was provided by the Local Authority.

 

·         Over the last 12 months there had been a significant increase in the number of CLA placed into purchased provision purely because of the availability of placements in area, a number of these would be outside of Bradford.

 

·         It was essential that own provision needed to be increased.

 

·         CLA numbers were rising locally and nationally, there were a limited number of external providers of foster care and more importantly residential care. There were on average between 400 / 500 referrals per month nationally  to the private residential sector.

 

·         This often meant that despite a children’s social care referral stating a specific need there may be no availability and the best available placement would be taken. This could mean that children and young people were placed at distance into a setting that might not be the best match.  There were a number of actions in place to try to address this including developing   more flexible provision locally; working with the market to have more local provision and increasing the number of in- house Foster Carers.

 

·         There had been increasing instances  of permission to accommodate a young person being given by Head of Service and no placement being available. This effectively meant a child or young person remaining in the current placement.

 

·         Bradford had a block contract of 10 beds with a provider called Hexagon and utilised these within homes in Bradford. This had recently been reviewed and extended for a further year.  As part of the review it increased from 8 beds to 10 as it was good quality provision and the block contract was more cost effective. The commissioning team was currently reviewing to see if there were further opportunities to use block contracts.

 

·         When CLA were placed into a private children’s home out of area, it was important that a risk assessment was undertaken with the local Police, placements teams and safeguarding team in the Local Authority (LA) to ensure that they were aware that a young person was being placed into area. A written notification was sent to the LA so that the CLA nursing team, Virtual School and Local Authority were aware.  This was supposed to also happen when a child was placed in Bradford from another authority, but did not always consistently do so. This was being addressed through individual conversations with local authorities and regional and national networks.

 

·         Bradford had experienced a number of situations in out of area placements where the local Police had put significant pressure on an external children’s  home when a young person had been going missing or risk was seen to be escalating which could result in placement disruption; providers were run as businesses and were Ofsted registered and police concern may trigger a poor Ofsted judgement .   An inadequate inspection outcome for a private provider meant that LA’s would not place their children with them. As a result difficult placements often ended with limited notice.

 

·         When Children were placed at distance support to the placement when problems were occurring could not easily be provided, Social Workers undertook statutory visits on a monthly basis and these were increased when needed however distance from Bradford did mean that young people could be isolated at times when they needed increased support.

 

·       CLA being placed at distance from Bradford raised a number of concerns; support to these young people and ensuring that the quality of the provision was monitored was paramount, increasing the use of technology to remain in contact with CLA such as face time and Skype should be explored wider in the council. These tools were the norm for young people and professionals also should embrace innovation as a way of remaining in touch to complement routine visits. Currently not all social workers were able to access this relevant IT when away from the office.

 

·         Work was on going to increase local sufficiency which included increasing internal fostering, revising emergency fostering offer, increasing local Children Homes capacity, ensuring sustainability of B Positive Pathways, reducing length of time in care by effective permanence planning, revising commissioning strategy and sustaining build on the Mockingbird Family Model.

From the information presented, Members made the following comments:

·         They were concerned that the number of out of area placements were increasing.

·         Were children being placed into Bradford from other authorities and was this minimising provision for Bradford’s Looked After Children.

 

·         Children placed out of area needed face to face contact with a Social Worker and not just contact through social media; they needed the right level of support; young people may not want the Council using snap chat etc.

 

·         What actions were being taking to monitor attendance at school.

 

·         What processes were in place for children being placed into Bradford from another authority and vice versa? It would be useful to have the Placement Co-ordination Team attend a future meeting to explain the process and circumstances of out of area placements.

 

·         Were out area placements disturbing for the young person?

 

·         Who was working with the police when a child/young person went missing from an out of area placement in external Children’s Homes?

 

·         Was OFSTED aware of the impact on external placements from Police visits?

 

·         The Council needed to grow more of its own 16+ provision; a lot of 16+ external provision was not regulated.

 

·         The improvements to IT capability and use of social media for Social Workers needed to be undertaken in consultation with Children in Care Council.

In response to the comments raised by Members it was reported that:

·         Some neighbouring authorities had chosen to outsource their provision which had not worked; Bradford’s response had always been to provide more of its own provision.

 

·         Children placed into Bradford from other authorities did not reduce provision for Bradford children, there were only a few children that came from other authorities and the vast majority were placed with family, friends or fostering.

 

 

 

·         Increasing the use of IT such as face time and skype for Social Workers would not take away the support being provided but would improve what was already in place and would complement routine visits; the service was looking at better ways of communicating with young people and IT would be another tool; access to IT needed improving; discussions with Children in Care Council would take place on the way forward in increasing the use of IT when communicating with young people.

 

·         A review was currently underway to look at quality of placements and strengthen arrangements with external placements and issues such as children going missing would be looked at.

 

·         A number of the placements that were placed into Bradford from other authorities were emergency placements and information had to be chased up; a written notification should be sent to the local authority so that the Children Looked After Nursing Team, Virtual School and Local Authority were aware; it was important that a risk assessment was undertaken with the Police, placements team and safeguarding team in the Local Authority to ensure that they were aware that a young person was being placed out of area; Bradford had a Placement Co-ordination Team that dealt with out area placements.

 

·         Some out of area placements were through Guardianship Orders, family friend provision etc young people in their teens generally wanted to return to Bradford.

 

·         Bradford was working closely with the Police when dealing with missing children from external placements, the same level of partnership working was not taking place in other authorities which was a national challenge.

 

·         More could be undertaken on how the authority monitored and challenged providers.

 

·         Some OFSTED reports highlighted significant risks; external providers needed to have good provision in place; a number of factors were considered before the police were involved with a missing young person;  OFSTED were invited to regional forums and issues were brought to their attention.

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the work being undertaken in the sufficiency plan to improve the level of provision locally be supported.

 

 

 

 

(2)       That the IT capability for Social Workers (SW’s) and Independent Reviewing Officers (IRO’s) be reviewed and the availability of IT  to SW’s and IRO’s to assist them with remaining in contact with Children Looked After and keeping in touch with Young People in out of area placements be improved.

 

(3)       That a report on how providers end placements be provided to the panel so that it can be monitored and challenged. 

 

Action:           Strategic Director, Children’s Services