Overview and Scrutiny - Improving Services for the Community

Blackpool Council

Overview and Scrutiny - Improving Services for the Community

CORPORATE PARENT SCRUTINY REVIEW PANEL

FINAL REPORT

CONTENTSPAGE

1.0Foreword by Lead Member3

2.0Background Information4

3.0Methodology5

4.0Detailed Findings and Recommendations 7

4.1Introduction

4.2LancashireCounty Council: “Who Cares?” Cross Boundary ‘Looked After Children’

4.3Profile of ‘Looked After Children’ (LAC)

4.4Value for Money of Care

4.5Inspections

4.6Fostering and Adoption

4.7Early Intervention

4.8Education and Transition to Independent Living

5.0Financial and Legal Considerations17

Action Plan18

1.0Foreword

1.1The Scrutiny Committee initiated this review to consider the Council’s Corporate Parent responsibilities and make recommendations pertaining to any improvements that could be made with regards to service provision. We wanted to ensure that the standard of care was of the highest attainable qualityin a way that is sufficient for Blackpool’s needs, cost effective and sustainable.

1.2During the review we considered the profile of ‘Looked After Children’, how the standard of care homes was monitored through inspection regimes and the value for money of care. We also considered Early Intervention and the transition to independent living.

1.3Unfortunately during the course of this review the Lead Member for the review Councillor Jim Houldsworth was taken seriously ill and passed away. I would like to thank the contribution made by Councillor Houldsworth and note his dedication to Corporate Parenting.

1.4I would also like to thank everyone who contributed to the review and gave their time willingly in order to try and improve the lives of ‘Looked After Children’.I freely acknowledge the help and assistance given to me by the other Councillors on the Working Group, Mr J Dooley and the Officers from across Blackpool Council.

Councillor Sylvia Taylor

Acting Lead Member Corporate Parent Scrutiny Panel

2.0Background Information

2.1At the Scrutiny Committee meeting of 9th June 2011, it was agreed that a Scrutiny Panel be established to undertake a review of the Council’s Corporate Parent responsibilities. It was considered a valuable opportunity to explore the current quality of care provision for ‘Looked After Children’ within the borough. The Committee felt that it was also essential to consider the cost of care to ensure that the Council was achieving optimum value for money without compromising quality.

2.2The Committee appointed a Scrutiny Panel comprising of CouncillorsMrs Henderson MBE, Houldsworth (Lead Member), Matthews and Mrs Taylor.At the refresher meeting on 7th October 2011, Councillor Houldsworth expressed his appreciation toCouncillor Mrs Taylor for taking over the role as Lead Member.Unfortunately, during the course of the review, Councillor Houldsworth passed away and this final report is hopefully a reflection of his hard work and the importance he placed on corporate parenting as well as the effort and commitment of the Review Panel.

2.3The Review Panel first met on 14th July 2011 and established the following overall objective for the review: To ensure that that the quality of care provided to Blackpool’s children is of the highest attainable quality and provides children with a safe, happy, healthy and secure childhood in a way that is sufficient for Blackpool’s needs, cost effective and sustainable.

2.4To meet this objective the following issues were considered as part of the review:

• The number of care homes within Blackpoolmanaged by Blackpool Council.
• The number care homes within Blackpoolmanaged by external providers.
• The number of ‘Looked After Children’ placed in care both within Blackpool and outside the area.
• How the standard of care provision is monitored and regulated.
• The number of independent homes within Blackpoolaccomodating children from outside the town.
• The cost of care, both internally and externally.
• The Corporate Parent responsibilities of Elected Members and how Members could be more engaged with the process.
• The transition stages from children in ‘Looked After’ care to assisted ‘Independent Living’.

Council Priorities

2.5In addition, the scrutiny review would also help the Council to achieve its priority to safeguard and protect the most vulnerable.

3.0Methodology

The Review Panel held a number of meetings to enable them to gather evidence and collect data.

The following meetings were held:

Date / Attendees / Purpose
5th July 2011 /

Councillors Houldsworth (Lead Member), Matthews and Mrs Taylor.

Janet Hambly, Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Georgina Atkinson, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To complete the scoping document.
14th July 2011 /

Councillors Houldsworth (Lead Member), Matthews and Mrs Taylor.

Janet Hambly, Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Steve Cook, Independent Reviewing Officer and Safeguarding Chair.
Dawn Ochieng, Integrated Commissioning Manager.
Georgina Atkinson, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To consider a number of background reports regarding ‘Looked After Children’ in Blackpool.
19th October 2011 / * From this meeting onwards, Councillor Mrs Taylor took over the role of Lead Member due to the ill health of Councillor Houldsworth. In addition, Mr Joseph Dooley was co-opted onto the Panel.
Councillors Mrs Henderson, Houldsworth, Matthews and Mrs Taylor (Lead Member)
Mr Joseph Dooley, Co-opted Member
Janet Hambly, Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Georgina Atkinson, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny).
Claire Evans, Principal Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Lancashire County Council. / To share information with Lancashire County Council and receive an overview of its recent review of cross-boundary ‘Looked After Children’.
1st November 2011 / Councillors Matthews and Mrs Taylor (Acting Lead Member)
Mr Joseph Dooley, Co-opted Member
Janet Hambly, Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Georgina Atkinson, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To consider information regarding the number of ‘Looked After Children’ in Blackpool and arrangement for placements.
15th November 2011 / Councillors Mrs Taylor (Acting Lead Member)
Mr Joseph Dooley, Co-opted Member
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Georgina Atkinson, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To consider information regarding fostering and adoption.
6th December 2011 / Councillors Mrs Taylor (Acting Lead Member), Henderson, Houldsworth and Matthews.
Mr Joseph Dooley, Co-opted Member
Janet Hambly,Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Sharon Davis, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To gather information on inspections undertaken including Ofsted and Regulation 33.
24th January 2012 / Councillors Mrs Taylor (Acting Lead Member), Mrs Henderson, and Matthews.
Mr Joseph Dooley, Co-opted Member
Janet Hambly,Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Sharon Davis, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To consider Education and Transition to Independent Living and the draft Corporate Parenting Strategy.
28th February 2012 / Councillors Mrs Taylor (Acting Lead Member) and Matthews.
Mark Golden, Finance Manager, Children, Adult and Family Services.
Janet Hambly,Service Director, Social Work and Safeguarding.
Paula Swindlehurst, Head of Children’s Social Care.
Sharon Davis, Senior Democratic Services Adviser (Scrutiny). / To look at proposals regarding Early Intervention and consider the budget for 2012/2013.

4.0Detailed Findings and Recommendations

Please note the figures used throughout this section are those received at the time of the review, these figures fluctuate on a regular basis.

4.1Introduction

4.1.1The responsibility of Local Authorities in improving outcomes and actively promoting the life chances of children they look after has become known as Corporate Parenting. The role of the Corporate Parent is to act as the best possible parent for each child looked after and to advocate on his/her behalf to secure the best possible outcomes.

4.1.2The Council does not currently have a set of priorities or strategy/policy document outlining Corporate Parent Responsibilities. The Panel was informed that this would be one of the first tasks of the reformed Corporate Parenting Board. However, general responsibilities of the Elected Member as a Corporate Parent can be summarised[1] as:

• Being aware of the Corporate Parenting role and the shared responsibility for ensuring that the needs of Looked After Children and care leavers are met.
• Having a knowledge and interest in the profile, needs and outcomes for Looked After Children.
• To understand the impact of all Council decisions on Looked After Children.
• To receive (and request) information about the quality of care and services that children are experiencing, providing appropriate challenge.
• To consider whether the care would be good enough for their own child.
• To ensure that actions are taken to address any shortcomings in services and to constantly improve the outcomes for Looked After Children and care leavers.

4.2LancashireCounty Council: “Who Cares?” Cross Boundary ‘Looked After Children’

4.2.1As part of its initial research into Corporate Parenting the Panel considered the recent review by Lancashire County Council (LCC) on Cross Boundary Looked After Children.[2] Claire Evans, Principal Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Lancashire County Council attended a meeting of the Panel to discuss the main findings of the review.

4.2.2The LancashireCounty Council report identified that moving a child in care across a boundary increased the vulnerability of that child. Primarily, this was due to difficulties in maintaining regular contact with the placing authority’s social worker. In addition, on occasions, the host authority was unaware that the child had been placed within its boundary. It was noted that Blackpool had the same issue with a lack of information accompanying children from outside the area placed within Blackpool homes.

4.2.3It was reported that there was a statutory requirement for the host authority to be notified when a cross-boundary Looked After Child was placed in its care.However, this did not always happen and the report considered that achieving this objective should be a Central Government priority. This lack of notification became a particular issue in relation to private children’s homesused by the local authority. In order to address this issuewithin Blackpool,the following tasks are being undertaken:

• Blackpool Council contact other authorities to query any recent placements of Looked After Children in Blackpool.
• The Youth Offending Team immediately advise Children’s Social Care if they have any contact with a Looked After Child from outside the Borough.
• Included with all external contracts is a requirement that the independent sector immediately notify the Council upon a child being placed in its care.

4.2.4It was noted that there were presently 131 Looked After Children from outside of Blackpool placed within the boundary.

4.2.5The Panel agreed that the lack of quality information accompanying children was a concern and could result in numerous issues. A local authority not being informed of a child’s arrival in the Borough could mean that the child did not get all the support he/she required with immediate effect.

4.3Profile of ‘Looked After Children’ (LAC)

4.3.1In order to create a profile of Looked After Children in Blackpool a number of documents were considered,most notably:

• Placements North West Individual Placement Report.
• Blackpool Council Sufficiency Strategy 2011 - 2012.
• Blackpool Council: Arrangements for the Placement of Children Looked After, August 2011.

4.3.2According to the Placements North West Individual Placement Report dated June 2011, the proportion of Looked After Children per 10,000 was higher in Blackpool than in other areas of the North West, with the exception of Manchester. Additionally, Blackpool had reported the largest rise in numbers of Looked After Children in the North Westsince 2006.

4.3.3The Panel noted that the number of Looked After Childrenfluctuated continuously and at the time of writing stood at 414, demonstrating a significant increase from May 2011, when the total was 378.

4.3.4The majority (currently 327) of children placed in care were placed with Council registered foster parents. Independent fostering agencies were also utilised and currently 43Looked After Children were placed through these agencies. Of the remaining Looked After Children, 32 were placed in private children’s homes and 12 within Council run children’s homes.

4.3.5It was noted that the budget for placements in 2012-2013 were reflective of current demand.

4.3.6The following chart demonstrates the increase in numbers of placements year on year provided by the Council for Looked After Children. It can be seen that the number of Council Children’s Home placements has not varied over recent years, but there have been significant increases in provision with regard to Council fostering and a small increase in use of private fostering agencies. Costs of these various options are considered later in this report.

4.3.7Of the children currently placed in care, 75 children had been placed ‘externally’ i.e. placed within Blackpool, but in the independent care sector or placed outside of the borough boundary. The main reasons for external placement are as follows:

• The child has specific needs which could not be met internally, such as disabilities, therapeutic needs or problematic behaviour.
• It is necessary to place the child outside of the borough due to vulnerability issues.
• Insufficient in-house placements.

4.3.8The performance of the independent care sector, as confirmed by Ofsted(The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills), was generally impressive and did not raise any immediate concerns. It was reported that the Head of Children’s Social Care and the Head of Commissioning had jointly worked with an independent children’s home to address concerns and proactively respond to issues. Regulation 33 (as required by the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001)[3] visits were undertaken monthly to ‘in-house’ children’s homes and annually to all external providers.

4.4Value for Money of Care

4.4.1The budget for 2011/2012 within Blackpoolwas £10.609m based on 393 children in care. In order to provide a realistic assessment for the required budget,The Director of Resources had considered the trends in numbers of Looked After Children and consequently the Council had increased the amount in the budget by £549k for 2012/2013 which would cover a total of 424 children. When the budget was set, this figure was considered to be sufficient based on these trends.However, there had recently been an increase in numbers. The budget was potentially limited but this was very much dependent on future trends and the numbers of children in care.

4.4.2The Panel was given detail of the cost of each different type of placement (included in the report on the following page) including Council Children’s Homes, Private Children’s Homes, Council Fostering and Independent Fostering Agencies. The Council used more Council Fostering than any of the other placement optionsand this was also the cheapest form of care.

4.4.3The Review Panel considered the Council property at Mansfield Road and noted that it was empty and would be well suited to use as a specialist children’s home with minimal adaption. If the Council could open this site as an additional home then this could result in a long term saving based on current figures (demonstrated below). A full business case for the proposals, if supported, would need to be presented. The Mansfield Road site could potentially house four Looked After Children which could result in savings of up to £60,000 per year based on the yearly costs of Council Children’s Homes and Private Children’s Homes.

4.4.4The cost of utilising Private Children’s Homes especially those outside of the Borough, was considerably higher than if in-borough Council Children’s Homes could be found. Those children hosted in existing premises could not be moved out, however, any new Looked After Children could be homed in a new development should the proposals be followed through.

Type of Placement / Per Week / Per Annum
(per child) / £ / £
Council Children’s Home / 1,976 / 102,736
Private Children’s Home / 2,250 / 116,985
Council Fostering / 239 / 12,404
Independent Fostering Agency / 818 / 42,550

4.4.5The above table also demonstrates that the unit costs of IndependentFostering Agencies are considerably more than Council Fostering. It is therefore of great importance that fostering is used, wherever appropriate, and that the Council continue to encourage people to become foster carers.

4.4.6The costs of Looked After Children to Blackpool Council in comparison to other authorities in the North West benchmarking group were much lower, as demonstrated in the chart below[4]. This lower cost per head was primarily because the Council used fostering much more than other local authorities.It demonstrated to the review panel that Blackpool Council was providing good value for money to residents whilst still placing an emphasis on quality of care and what was right for the child.

4.4.7The Panel considered that it was important to understand the children who had been placed in care and that it would be beneficial to undertake an analysis of any key demographics or issues that had resulted in a child being received into care. This would ensure that the service being provided by the Council was fit for purpose and achieving the most effective outcomes possible. This would also link to the development of the Early Intervention Strategy discussed at Section 4.7 of this report.

Recommendation 2

That the Council property at Mansfield Road be considered for use as a specialist children’s home, subject to a full business case demonstrating financial viability.

Recommendation 3

To analyse the detail of all Looked After Children received into care in the last 12 months to identify any demographic and other issues that resulted in children being in care in order to focus energy and resources where they were most needed and inform service planning to achieve the most effective outcomes possible.