Agenda item

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submits a report providing a summary of the progress made since the last placement sufficiency strategy

of 2020/24, and sets out the proposed long-term priorities for 2025/30.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submitted a report providing a summary of the progress made since the last placement sufficiency strategy of 2020/24, and setting out the proposed long-term priorities for 2025/30.

The Head of Corporate Parenting presented the report and gave a presentation:

Key points other than those on the slides (attached with agenda) included:

• The service was demand-led, so there was a need to think about what the population may look like.
• It was aimed to ensure that care was a last resort, therefore there was a dependency on Edge of Care.  Edge of Care had a place in sufficiency in terms of helping children to stay with their families.
• It was also important to ensure that children were in care for the shortest time possible, so it was necessary to look at permanence, such as special guardianship arrangements.  Therefore, a strand of work sat under this.  A key part of this was the ability to recruit and retain more foster carers.
• It was important to ensure that most children in care were with Council Carers rather than private ones.
• Looking at the age profile of foster carers, it was recognised that some may be looking to retire, so it was important that more were recruited.  This was critical as there was a national shortage of foster carers and there was also competition with other authorities an Independent Fostering Agencies (IFA).
• The figures of children in IFA in the City were low and the Council maintained seven of its own residential homes with another opening this summer.  Six of these homes were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted.  Another required improvement and this was being worked on.
• More children with challenging and complex behaviour were being looked after.  These had fared better than those placed out of the area.  Therefore, there was a plan to increase the number of children in their own homes.
• Capital expansion was a competitive process, and therefore it was a vote of confidence in the Council’s ability to manage homes effectively.
• The Council had an established workforce in the residential sector and there had been succession planning.  This was a critical part of the strategy.
• It was necessary to consider the best ways of commissioning in terms of cost.  It was more expensive for a child to live in residential accommodation than it was for them to live with family.  This highest placement costs could range from £12k-£15k per week.
• The market was broken, and profiteering had been taking place, therefore there was a need to invest.
• Children were best off living locally and attending local schools.  Therefore, there was an ambition to keep children in care living locally.
• Care Leavers included young people up to the age of 25.  This meant actively engaging and providing high-quality accommodation.
• There were pressures in housing as this was a demand-led service.
• The Leicester Ask Survey was a wide survey looking into the wished and views of young people.  The responses had been very positive regarding how they felt about accommodation.
• There was a focus on place and stability.  When children in care needed to move, the move needed to be kept to a minimum.  The figures for moves held up well in this respect.  Some children in care were coming into care in an emergency situation and sometimes needed to move quickly, however, these numbers were kept low as it was disruptive to education and the health needs of the children in care.
• The numbers of children in care were stable, this went against the national trend.
• There was in increase in older adolescents coming into care relatively late.  It was more challenging to find foster placements for 16-17-year-olds than it was for the under 5s. 
• It was necessary to get placements of the right type and the best value.

The Commission were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• In response to questions surrounding the recruitment of foster carers, it was explained that the Council was looking to recruit from all of the communities it served.  It was noted that in terms of ethnicity, white children were over-represented in the care system, and it was necessary to ensure that the best cultural matches were made.
• Recruitment of foster carers would not be done internationally as there would be legislative issues and issues around accountability.
• Each foster carer had a supporting social worker.  This was sometimes a factor in foster carers joining the Council having previously been private as they valued the support from social work staff.
• It was aimed to recruit foster carers locally, but not exclusively.
• It was aimed to promote flexible fostering, for example, carers could be short-break or respite carers and did not necessarily have to be full time.
• There was no clear answer as to why there was an increase in older children coming into care as there was complexity surrounding it.  It was suggested that these children could be at risk of criminal and/or sexual exploitation and may need to be placed outside the area for safeguarding purposes.  There had also been an overlap on children with complex health needs who were coming into the system late.  This was a trend that had been seen nationally.
• With regard to points made about the cost-of-living, it was acknowledged that this was relevant for people considering becoming foster carers as people may need a change in working patterns to become foster carers, therefore it was important to ensure that foster carers were remunerated.
• The main reason for children coming into care was neglect.
• It was clarified that sometimes foster carers form IFA mentioned they wanted to work for the Council, but these people were not approached separately by the Council.  It was noted that former IFA carers had felt under pressure regarding the matching process due to an unacceptable notice period where high-cost carers had terminated placements.  This would not happen with Council homes.
• There was a different kind of engagement with the private sector, however, the Council were satisfied that children’s needs were met in all placements.  However, there were ways to look after children better and provide better value.
• With regard to pocket-money and clothing allowance, this was offered by the Council but not marketed in the same way as it was for IFA.  The Council offer included support for holidays and religious festivals that had not been publicised in the same way that they were for IFA.
• The Council did not have supported lodgings in-house, but opportunities and feasibility were being looked at.
• In terms of the reasons that children and young people were brought into care, only a primary reason was recorded.  Definitions were set by the Department for Education.  In terms of the demographic spread across the local authority, the major reason would be abuse and neglect. 
• Missing figures could be provided.
• In terms of positive lessons learned from other authorities, the Council were part of a network on fostering in the East Midlands and from this it had been learned that the trends and pressures faced were not unique to Leicester.  It had been possible to learn different ways of fostering, such as the flexible approach and an additional band of foster care payments for those with additional needs.  Additionally, the Council were looking to keep in touch with foster carers through digital media.
• It was estimated that there was a national shortage of 10,000-15,000 foster carers nationally, this was a challenging position.  As such it was important to think about the unique selling points of Leicester.
• In terms of local figures on foster care shortage, it was clarified that all CLA were placed appropriately other than in emergencies (and this was a very small number).  However, the 15-20 foster carers gained each year was offset by those moving on or retiring.  Therefore, if nothing was done, there would be more pressure.  As such, it was aimed to shift from IFA to fostering households.  12% of CLA were in residential accommodation, but it was thought that this figure could come down significantly.  It was necessary to keep children local and invest better and earlier.
• Officers were always willing to come out to local communities to promote fostering in local areas.
• In terms of reunification with families, there was a need to ask questions about whether children could return to families.  The vast majority return to Leicester and engage with families, therefore conversations were needed to ensure there was a safeguarding approach.  In terms of placement with parents provisions, steps to reunification with birth parents would be considered.
• It had previously been the case that often the Council had worked less with parents once a child was removed.  Therefore, part of the family model would be about ensuring that children could return to families with the right support.  This would not always be possible, but there was work to do on contact with parents.
• With regard to the national shortage of foster carers in local authorities and in IFA, it was suggested that this could partly be due to the Covid-19 pandemic and people valuing their own time more or being more hesitant to take people into their houses.  It was also suggested that it could be due to wider demographic shifts such as women working longer.
• It was acknowledged that foster carers made good recruiters, however, the volumes recruited were not as large as they had been.

AGREED:

1)    That the presentation be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That the report come back to the Commission in six months’ time.