Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director of Children and Learning.

This report sets out the annual report on corporate parenting and provides an overview of the achievement, progress and challenges in meeting the needs of Camden’s children in care and care experienced young who are placed both in borough and outside the borough. The report also sets out the priorities for 2025 and covers the period from December 2023 to November 2024.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director of Children and Learning.

The Chair informed the Committee that a draft of the new Corporate Parenting Strategy, alongside a proforma asking for feedback, would be circulated to Committee Members in due course, ahead of its submission to Cabinet to be formally agreed. A proforma would allow opportunity for more structured views to be provided by Members.

Brenda Amisi-Hutchinson (Head of Corporate Parenting) summarised the annual report on corporate parenting which provided an overview of the achievement, progress, challenges, and 2025 priorities for Camden’s corporate parenting services in meeting the needs of Camden’s children in care and care experienced young people who were placed both in and out of borough.

The Chair thanked officers for the report and invited questions and comments from the Committee. The following was discussed:

·       A Member asked why the number of looked after children was higher in the summer months. Officers explained that this could be attributed to the end of the school year, with schools potentially managing challenges relating to young people, and that summer was safer for unaccompanied children to travel to the UK. Officers explained that another contributing factor was the rise in children entering care due to serious youth violence and child exploitation. The goal was to support families and help children remain in the home by offering more intensive support, such as frequent visits and dedicated workers. Parental mental health issues also played a role, and efforts were being made to offer support through safety plans and alternative family placements, including a refreshed kinship offering. Officers noted an increase in referrals, assessments, child protection investigations, and children placed on protection plans. They acknowledged that there was a higher volume of cases in the system, in line with national trends, and suggested that a post-pandemic effect might be at play. They highlighted a focus on delivering preventative interventions.

·       A Member asked if the cost-of-living crisis meant parents could not afford to look after their children. Officers agreed it impacted parents and also the Council. They explained that the cost-of-living crisis impacted the cost of care purchased through commissioning, with providers inflating prices, which in turn affected the Council’s budget.

·       A Member stated that most carers were White British, while Black and Global Majority groups were underrepresented. They noted that White carers might not understand the trauma or culture of children from these groups and asked if there was training for them. Officers acknowledged that more work was needed to recruit more diverse foster carers. They explained that all foster carers had a schedule of training each year and that Replenish boxes containing skin and hair care products were provided for White foster carers, to support them in starting conversations and understanding the specific care needs of Black children. They also highlighted the need for more targeted recruitment of families with refugee status to support these areas within the system and mentioned commissioning specialist training. A Member stated that training should address topics directly and have a more direct approach, stressing the importance of being clear and not avoiding difficult points.

·       Officers explained that Table 2 related to the period spent in care, noting that 72 children had been in care for over two years. They mentioned that there were few younger children in care for extended periods, as efforts were made to implement adoption plans. However, a small number of children remained in care for longer durations, and more children were coming into care for extended periods. The youngest child on a care order was 4 years old and had completed care proceedings, potentially remaining with the council for up to 14 years. A Member noted that the table showed a snapshot of the length of time in care and suggested it would be useful to track changes over time. They recommended that future reports include a comparison over five years.

·       The Cabinet Member for Young People, Culture and Jobs mentioned visiting the new accommodation for looked after children, Joseph House, last summer. Officers explained that it currently housed three children, with a fourth expected next month. They were awaiting Ofsted registration at the end of the month, after which the accommodation would be fully utilised. Officers noted a good mix of young children, and the Director had visited in November as part of monitoring to ensure the facility was running as expected.

·       A Member asked if there were links between the Council and the regional adoption agency, Adopt London North. Officers confirmed that they worked closely with the agency, specifically highlighting the Black Adopters Project, which aimed to match children culturally. They also noted that four adoptions had taken place that year, with one child having been in care until the age of seven which demonstrated persistence and hard work to secure adoptions for children who had been in care for a long time. A Member asked if the performance of regional areas was monitored. Officers explained that inspections were conducted for the regional adoption agency, with feedback shared with the Council. They noted that the agency reported to Camden’s Corporate Parenting Board, and the Director held regular meetings with the agency to stay informed.

·       In response to a Member, officers agreed to provide clarification on the figures in Table 3 and Figure 3 in the report because there appeared to be inconsistencies, specifically addressing that only 70% of children were accounted for in Table 3 and that there was a different percentage of white children between the charts (section 2.3, page 47 of the agenda).

Action By - Director of Children's Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding

·       A Member asked whether the ambitions and priorities were realistic, and if they were short-term goals or ongoing areas that needed consistent work. Officers confirmed that the promises were achievable and aligned with statutory responsibilities, as well as what good corporate parenting practices entailed. They explained that an implementation plan would run alongside the Corporate Parenting Strategy and could take years to achieve, requiring consistent effort.

·       A Member asked for feedback on priorities and how they would be measured, noting that while current data was useful for understanding the present situation, it was less clear how to gauge future aims. The Member inquired about any numerical targets to ensure that improvements were being achieved. Officers explained that operational targets had not been set, as striving for 100% could sometimes be unhelpful in trying to serve every child, but they could consider setting targets in the future. Officers highlighted key goals, such as ensuring as many children as possible were adopted or returned to connected family members during care proceedings. They also emphasised the importance of permanency planning, with a focus on placing children in permanent foster homes and keeping children within Camden with in-house carers. Individual children's needs should guide decisions, acknowledging that some may require residential care. They aimed to achieve best practices while ensuring decisions were right for each child. A Member suggested it would be helpful to see how these outcomes changed year on year, with a focus on meeting targets. Officers agreed, noting that benchmarking data would also be useful. It was noted that for the implementation plan, a dataset would be created for monitoring, identifying areas for improvement.

·       A Member asked for more information on how the Council could increase the diversity of foster carers. Officers explained that efforts included bus campaigns, community events, individual referrals, and staff nominations for assessments. They highlighted that schools had not been fully explored as a recruitment area but were planned to be targeted next year. The goal was to recruit 20 foster carers and officers acknowledged the need to target specific communities more effectively. A Member suggested involving community and religious leaders, as raised last year at Committee. Officers noted that while progress had been slow with this approach, the focus this year had been on recruiting 20 carers rather than specifically targeting diversity. They planned to report back on this area next year. It was added that different recruitment approaches were being explored and recruiting for specific children and integrating this into the recruitment strategy.

·       A Member requested more information on the 15.1% of children who had moved placements and the reasons for instability. Officers explained that some moves were due to initial placements not being suitable. A small proportion of children experienced significant instability when first entering care, often due to underlying needs that took time to assess. There were also positive moves, such as children moving to family members, with arrangements made to support these transitions. In some cases, short-term placements were made until a more suitable match could be found, and some children returned to Joseph House. Overall, most moves were positive, though there was a small proportion where this was not the case. In response to Members, officers agreed to provide further information and reasons for instability experienced by the 15.1% children in care who had three or more moves during the 12-month period covered by the annual report.

Action By - Director of Children's Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding

·       A Member inquired about the issue of children being placed in homes outside of Camden and the potential for them going missing, referencing this as a national concern in previous years. Officers responded that Camden was fortunate to have its own provisions and were considering the establishment of smaller children's homes. They explained that there was a protocol for handling missing children, which included providing information packs, contacting families and friends, and permitting young people to stay with friends overnight, provided they informed the Council. Although the cohort of children who went missing was small, some had multiple episodes, often associated with risks of exploitation. Officers acknowledged the ongoing crisis in the national care market, which had resulted in a shortage of suitable placements, and as a result, some children were placed further away from home. They noted that the upcoming Children’s Bill would likely include regional provision arrangements. The Council was focused on managing the care market and ensuring as many placements as possible remained local. Officers additionally highlighted efforts to prevent older children from entering care, as residential placements did not always lead to improved safety or outcomes, and were exploring alternative solutions to better meet their needs. A Member said that additional data regarding children's home placements, specifically the number of children placed within the borough versus those placed further afield, as well as the frequency and types of missing incidents would be valuable in reporting.

·       A Member asked if the Council had any levers to address issues in the care market. Officers explained that their powers were limited due to being one commissioner in a larger market. They gave the example of supported accommodation, where Camden had a pathway and commissioned a block of placements for a long period. Residential care, however, had small provisions. Officers noted that without working with other local authorities, it was difficult to see how they could use leverage effectively. They acknowledged that the market had not worked in some areas, resulting in profiteering and reduced quality. They hoped that the new bill might introduce measures to address these challenges.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Committee note the report.