The report of the Director of Children’s Services(Document “E”) summarises performance and activity in respect of young people with care leaver entitlement in Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

Recommended -

Members are asked to consider the report.

(Mandy Helm - 01274 438792)

1.         The agenda paper was taken as read.

2.         Asked about the eligibility status of young people who had been the subject of a Special Guardianship Order (SGO), the Care Leavers’ Service (CLS) advised that, where such a young person requested support, the team would consider a package of support for them.  Asked to what extent SGO placements were monitored, AD/SRCP explained that, when a young person exited care due to the making of an SGO, Children’s Services did not routinely remain involved unless the family requested additional support for a period of time: many preferred not to have continuing involvement with Children’s Services, particularly if the child was young.  Asked whether the CLS routinely made contact with these young people when the SGO ended at the age of 18 or 21, CLS advised that they did not: however, SGO carers could contact them if they needed support and advice.

3.         AD/SRCP said that the position would be clarified and arrangements put in hand to signpost young people with SGOs and SGO carers to help and support.

4.         Asked the reasons for the significant growth in the number of children who received leaving care services between March 2020 and November 2021, and the sharp spike in November 2021, CLS agreed that an increase in the number of migrants following the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan might have been a contributing factor.  Asked whether it was possible to tell how much of the increase had arisen from this cause, AD/SRCP said that it was not.  The number of Looked After Children was increasing and, because a large number were entering care at the age of 16 or 17, this was already starting to feed through into the number of young people leaving care. 

5.         Asked whether Covid 19 had led to an increase in the number of young people entering care due to family breakdown, AD/SRCP said that this did not appear to be a significant factor in Bradford.  CLS noted that the Covid restrictions had limited the team’s contact with young people: it was more challenging to monitor how they were doing over virtual platforms than face to face.

6.         The Panel noted that young people had raised with Panel members at the consultation meetings with them in July 2021 and January 2022 their concerns about pathway planning: they had made clear that they did not recognise themselves in the pathway plans.  This needed to be addressed.  Asked to what extent young people had been involved in the work of the CLS, and how they would receive feedback, CLS described how they had changed their processes.  In particular, they had moved to a single IT system so that all information was available on a single platform.  Staff were being upskilled, with an emphasis on ensuring that they listened carefully to young people, rather than expecting young people to listen to them.   The Panel asked to what extent young people had been involved in determining this approach: for example, it had been clear from the consultations that they would like to chair their review meetings.  The Panel’s was concerned to ensure that the design and delivery of services was determined by the lived experience of young people.  CLS said that the new process had not yet been rolled out, but that the voice of young people was clearly heard, and drove the pathway plans: young people were involved in setting goals, actions and timescales.

7.         The Panel noted that a review had been carried out that had been process-driven.  It understood the need for efficient and effective processes, but asked whether young people would see any difference in how pathway planning worked for them.  AD/SRCP asked whether young people were now chairing their own reviews: CLS said that review officers encouraged young people to attend their reviews and decide who should attend.  Team managers informed social workers that they should not update a young person’s pathway plan without discussing the change with them. 

8.         Asked whether young people had independent electronic access to their pathway plans, so that they could refer to them at any time, CLS said that the plans were sent to their personal e-mail addresses and shared with them during meetings and visits.  They also had paper copies.  The Panel took the view that young people should have access to their plans through the Leaving Care app.  AD/SRCP said that GDPR and security issues would need to be addressed but that it should be possible to arrange secure access.  The Panel welcomed this and asked that the necessary arrangements be made. 

9.         Noting the statement that “The service has reviewed the effectiveness of the platform [the Leaving Well app] concluding that the app will be discontinued by the end of the calendar year”, the Panel asked the reason for this decision and what would replace the Leaving Well app.  CLS explained that pathway plans on the Leaving Well app did not feed through into the Care Leavers app.  By discontinuing the Leaving Well app and moving pathway plans onto the Care Leavers app, the pathway information could be accessed by managers and practitioners, allowing them to see when and by whom young people had last been seen, their goals etc.  AD/SRCP added that Ofsted expected to find all information in a single place. Asked the date by which all data would be satisfactorily migrated to the Care Leavers app, AD/SRCP said that pathway plans were reviewed on a six-month cycle, so should all be on the Care Leavers app within that time frame.  CLS confirmed that staff had been instructed not to add new information to the Leaving Well app.

10.      Noting that young people had put a lot of work into the Leaving Well app, the Panel asked whether they had been informed that it was being discontinued and that their pathway plans were being migrated to the Leaving Care app, to which they did not currently have access.  CLS understood that practitioners were informing young people, and that young people were not concerned about it.  The Panel expressed concern about the services taking decisions on such matters without prior consultation with young people: it might be that young people did not raise concerns when they were informed of decisions after the fact because they did not believe that their views would have any impact.  The Panel understood the need for process and to meet regulatory requirements, but emphasised the need to consult young people on changes that affected them in time for their views to shape the proposals, not just the implementation of those proposals after they had been decided.  The Panel recognised that this was challenging, but providers of services to young people needed to embed early consultation with young people as a routine element of developing proposals.  The Panel would be pressing for this in all aspects of services to young people.

11.       The Panel expressed concern about the issue of accommodation for young people leaving care.  There was a small but steady decline in the proportion of 17 to 18 year olds for whom suitable accommodation was found.  The balance between the proportion of young people in unsuitable care and the proportion for whom information was unavailable was troubling, and the definition of “unsuitable” accommodation (“Accommodation that clearly exposes the person to risk of harm or social exclusion by reason of its location or other factors”) rang alarm bells, given that an unknown proportion of current care leavers in Bradford were living in such accommodation.   This chimed with the view expressed by young people in the Panel’s summer 2021 consultation with them that they had no choice about the accommodation they moved into: they had either to accept the accommodation that was offered or move into a hostel.  Some of the accommodation that they had to accept was not of a standard that Panel members would consider acceptable for their own children.

12.       CLS said that the service struggled to find suitable accommodation for care leavers.  It had invested in a dedicated Personal Advisor with a focus on preventing homelessness among care leavers, who was involved in the assessment of accommodation and was trying to build more collaborative and integrated ways of working with housing.  Asked with which specific housing services they worked, CLS said they worked with the local authority’s Housing Options service and In Communities, which conducted timely assessments and gave priority status to care leavers.  The Panel asked that CLS explore the scope to work with the many other housing providers and to collaborate with other local authorities.

13.       The Panel agreed that the Chair should ask Cllr Dunbar, as the leader for the Housing theme, to pursue this element of the Annual Report of Care Leavers with the appropriate officer.

14.       Asked about the reference to “Blanks” in the table on pages 8-9 of the Annual Report of Care Leavers, CLS explained that this indicated that the worker had not included information in the relevant tab of the system, and the information had not been pulled through from the other system.  Panel members did not consider this satisfactory but noted that the service was moving to a single system.  They asked whether this information was recorded on the Personal Education Plans.  AD/SRCP said that the number of young people accessing Education, Employment or Training (EET) could be higher and, indeed, might be higher than appeared: the current issue with information from one system not feeding into the other, which was being addressed, might make it appear that fewer people were accessing EET than was in fact the case.

15.       Asked to what extent CLS linked with Skills House to explore different routes for young people, CLS confirmed that they discussed access to EET in team meetings and worked with Skills House, the Virtual School, the Youth Offenders service and other services.  Multi-agency panels met to discuss young people whose future paths were challenging or unclear.  Asked whether Skills House was involved in these multi-agency discussions, CLS said that it was not at present.  The panel asked that this be addressed. 

16.       Panel members were surprised by the decline in the proportion of young people who attended their Child Looked After Review and spoke for themselves between April 2020 to March 2021 and April to October 2021.  They were troubled by the proportion (18% to 27%) who did not attend their Child Looked After Review, but instead shared their views through prior communication with their Independent Review Officer (IRO): they asked whether young people were able to share their views meaningfully in this way.  CLS explained that young people were contacted by their IRO up to two days before the review meeting and talked through the documentation.  If the young person did not wish to attend the review, they were asked for their reasons, but their view was respected.  Replying to questions, CLS confirmed that the young person was asked the same questions by the IRO as they would have been asked at the review meeting, and their responses were discussed t the review meeting.

17.       Asked whether young people could access Viewpoint independently, without dialogue with their IRO, CLS said that they could.  The IRO would ask the young person about their preferences: IROs knew their young people well, having worked with them for a number of years.  Panel members said that this was not the picture gained from the recent consultations with young people, some of whom had said that they did not know who their IRO was.  

18.       Asked how the service picked up young people who chose not to participate in their Reviews, AD/SRCP said that would be a sign that all was not well with the young person and should trigger alarm bells.  Asked whether such signs were, in fact, picked up, he said that they would be visible to the IRO, social worker and manager.  Panel members observed that there were a number of young people who did not participate.

19.       Asked for clarification of the reference (page 19 of the report) to “four more placement options for Separated Migrant Children”, CLS undertook to advise Panel members following the meeting. 

20.       Turning to the section of the report on Health Assessments, the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) said that Covid 19 had led to a significant reduction in the number of health reviews. The need to address the significant backlog in initial health assessments and long waiting times had stretched the system to capacity.  A full service review had been undertaken and a new model of service delivery had been implemented from 01 April 2021.  An interim Designated Doctor had been appointed; four GPs were carrying out the initial health assessments and a fifth was being recruited.  There were two Named Doctors for safeguarding.  Additional staff had been recruited into the nursing team.  Weekly triage meetings were held to prioritise young people for early initial health assessments.

21.       This new model appeared to be working well: hard impact data was not yet available, but rigorous monthly data suggested that the next annual review would demonstrate progress, including a reduction in the backlog of reviews. 

22.       Asked about the frequency with which health passports were produced for young people leaving care, CCG undertook to advise Cllr Alipoor following this meeting.  This was part of the work that would be undertaken now that the service was able to invest in additional capacity for Looked After Children. 

23.       The Panel had been concerned to learn from their consultation meetings with young people that a number of them did not know how to access a doctor.  CCG undertook to ask the Looked After Children nurses to look into this.

24.       Referring to the graph on page 28 of the report, Panel members discussed the substantial drop in the number of young people receiving a care leaver’s service in the second half of 2021: this appeared to be at odds with data provided to the Scrutiny Committee, which had not suggested such a reduction.  CCG said that children who entered care were allocated a nurse who remained with them throughout their time in care.  The drop shown on the graph reflected a reprioritisation of initial health assessments.  A drop had been expected, but a number of other contributory factors had not been anticipated.  Replying to questions, CCG said that the waiting time for initial health assessments had reduced from 180 days to 70 days.  There were now 86 young people on the waiting list, a substantial reduction.  For approximately 48% of young people, consent had not been given.  Triage meetings were held to prioritise young people for health assessments.

25.       The Panel was concerned about the rate of teenage pregnancy among care leavers and agreed that the effectiveness of preventative measures should be considered as part of its Health theme.

Salina Khan and Shaheen Zahilda left the meeting at 7.35pm

Resolved –

That Document “E” and the detailed discussion on its contents be noted.  

ACTION: Director of Children’s Services