The Report of Children’s Services (Document “C”) provides checklist information to inform members how they can be involved as Corporate Parents and links to training and development of Members and Senior Managers.

Recommended –

The views of the Corporate Parenting Panel on the options set out in Section 9 of this report are requested. 

(Philip Segurola – 01274 431266)

The Report of Children’s Services (Document “C”) provided checklist information to inform members how they could be involved as Corporate Parents and links to training and development of Members and Senior Managers.

The Deputy Chair said that the agenda paper had been based on a document provided by the DfE Commissioner and had been prepared in response to the Motion to Council on Child Protection.  The document needed to be agreed by this Panel and promulgated to elected Members, officer and partners.  The Panel agreed that this was an accurate statement of the background to the paper.

AD/SRCP confirmed that LAs would normally have such a document to clarify for all elected Members and Officers their role as Corporate Parents, and considered that it was a thorough statement of those responsibilities.  He invited the views of the Panel on how they wished it to be promulgated and the evidence they would require of its effectiveness. 

The Panel welcomed the document, which would help to engender the desired cultural shift by giving a clear indication of the range of actions that Members, officer and partners could and should take to fulfil their Corporate Parenting responsibilities. 

Referring to the third bullet in the section on members of the Scrutiny Committee (“seek qualitative as well as quantitative information to ensure that the experiences of children looked after are consistent with what the performance data shows”), the Panel discussed the challenges presented to Scrutiny Committee members in scrutinising qualitative information in this highly confidential and sensitive area.  In practice, an element of trust would be required that effective procedures were in place for officers to scrutinise cases with their first and second line managers to identify what had happened, the reasons and what should have happened.  It would take time to re-establish this Trust following the misinformation that the Scrutiny Committee had received at strategic level in the past. 

AD/SRCP reminded the Panel that, when they returned to conduct a full inspection, Ofsted would ask the Lead Member, and possibly other Members, how they could be sure that the LA was a good Corporate Parent.  Part of the answer would be based on quantitative evidence such as academic outcomes and stablility of placements.  This would need to be supplemented with direct knowledge of the views of young people on their experience of being in the care system in Bradford.  DD/SC added that a range of methods were in place to determine the views of children and families on placements, whether children felt safer, whether they had effective support plans etc.  Regulation 44 visits to children’s homes included information about the facilities to which children had access.  However, the LA was not currently collecting the direct views of young people as actively as it would wish.  This kind of qualitative information was challenging to collect and could change over time, because the benefits of actions were not always visible to young people immediately; but a clear understanding of the views of young people was critical.  As Corporate Parent, it was essential to know whether children and young people felt they were receiving high quality care and whether they considered the LA to be a good parent. 

The Panel discussed the need for measures of impact for the actions set out in the document and an appropriate way to record that impact.  Actions around being aware of facts about Looked After Children could easily be addressed by providing the information to each Ward Member.  Ward Member and partners needed to be vocal in their role as Corporate Parent, including through engagement with social media: they needed to ask Young People how the care system could work better for them.  DD/SC noted that the acting Director of Children’s Services had established a practice of messaging young people directly: this practice needed to be extended to other officers and elected Members.

Noting that the consultation meeting held with young people in the summer of 2021 had indicated that they held carrying views on the extent to which officers acted in response to their views, the Panel asked whether a standardised practice would be established for responding to the views of children and young people. 

AD/SRCP said that young people participated in the six-monthly child and peer reviews, but there was scope to engage with them more effectively.  Participation data was reasonably positive, but the effectiveness of that participation varied.  A more robust engagement process was needed for children in residential care homes and for those who used commissioned services. This was an area for improvement.

Asked whether there were plans to develop a Participation Strategy, AD/SRCP said that such a strategy could be Council-wide, with a specific section addressing the participation of children in care: this would be for Members to decide.  The Panel noted the need to draw together work on a Participation Strategy with existing work on the Child-Friendly and other strategies.

Cllr Allipool withdrew from the meeting at 6.17pm

Referring to Table 12 in Section 5 of the RO report (Child Participation), the Panel noted that a relatively small proportion of children physically attended and spoke for themselves at reviews.  This was consistent with the feedback from young people at the consultation meeting in July 2021 that they did not wish to be taken out of school for review meetings because they were concerned about the stigma of being identified as being in care.  The panel noted that older children had wanted to chair their review meetings – this did not seem unreasonable.  AD/SRCP agreed: properly supported, child-led discussions could be very powerful and represented real participation.

Cllr Allipool rejoined the meeting at 6.20pm

The Panel saw merit in establishing a Council-wide Participation Strategy, underpinned by plans at the level of each service to ensure that the overall strategy was achieved in whole and without overlap.  Asked about the timing of the Participation Strategy, AD/SRCP said that it was not being worked on at present: this was a corporate issue.  The Deputy Chair would pursue this. 

The Panel discussed the need to support Members and Officers in carrying out the activities set out in the agenda paper.  For example, a model would need to be developed for Ward Councillor visits to residential homes.  Such a model would make clear that the purpose of the visits was to hear the views of young people and carers, rather than to make judgements.  The Panel agreed that the second part of bullet 7 in the Ward Councillor section of the agenda paper (“arrange to visit periodically and speak to staff about their experiences and challenges”) should be amended to make clear the distinction between Regulation 44 visits and informal visits to get to know homes and staff.  Members noted that Regulation 44 visits were rigorous occasions: they had to be properly prepared, ask the questions that an Ofsted Inspector would ask and address any weaknesses identified in inspections.  The reports of Regulation 44 visits were sent to Ofsted

AD/SRCP said that consideration was being given to how elected Members might be involved in the monthly visits that independent officers were required to make to each home in the District.  This would give Members an insight into Bradford’s homes and an opportunity to learn what young people thought about them, while minimising disruption.  The Panel considered that a process also needed to be established to enable Ward Councillors to get to know the foster carers in their areas, both to ensure that they understood the issues and to provide signposting to sources of support as required.

Resolved -

1.    That the Corporate Parenting Checklist be amended as agreed

2.    That the checklist be submitted to the Communications Team for advice on presenting and communicating it effectively

3.    That the checklist be considered to be a live document, to be kept under review by the Panel in response to feedback

4.    That elected Members review the sections contained in the checklist to be shared with appropriate stakeholders

Action: Strategic Director, Children’s Services/CPP Panel Members