The Head of Looked After Children presented the Report and highlighted at the end of quarter four of 2023/24 the following points:

• 290 Children in care.
• Further 269 care experienced young adults aged 18+ were receiving care from Aftercare.
• Children and young adults were visited regularly.
• The management of missing children was consistent and reflected good partnerships with the Police and Thurrock Community Safety.
• Improvement was required in the timelines of Initial Health Assessment which was an area of focus with health partners.
• Areas which they were seeking to show improved outcomes included supporting increased numbers of young people in education, employment or training and ensuring young people had the right accommodation to meet their needs.
• Children were mostly placed with foster carers, or where safe and possible, family members.
• Foster care continued to develop local placements for children.
• There was a decline in children who had become looked after in the last 2-3 years.
• Thurrock had a lower rate of Looked After Children than their statistical neighbours.

Members raised the following questions:

The data shows there had been success with reuniting children with families.  What was the average time children spent looked after before being placed back with family?

·                 A timeframe cannot be placed on this as it varies from child to child.

What is done differently to our neighbours to ensure success?

·                 There was a focus on permanency.  Working with extended family networks to support keeping the family together, where it was safe and continually revisiting and reviewing.  Thurrock’s policy was where safe and appropriate for children to stay within the family network.

The Statistics show 28% (equating to 1 in 4) of looked after children were living outside the borough.  This figure being substantially more than the target figure and worse than some of our statistical neighbours.  Can reassurance be given that our foster service were not suffering adversely from the financial pressures the Council was under?  Children Services were ring fenced and children were a priority.  Scrutinising the statistics, it was noted there was a higher percentage than our neighbours placed outside the borough and our recruitment foster carer figures were well below target.  What was being done to address this?

·         Children Services were well supported financially and had not been asked to make significant cuts to the service.  Actively recruiting and were always taking part in recruitment initiatives.  Members were asked to note, foster carers were extremely hard to recruit and this was a national issues.  The Foster recruitment team were out in the community every day.  It was believed Thurrock were competitive and offered a huge amount of support to foster carers which aids retention.

Action point

Members were invited to share their ideas of how to increase recruitment, what could be done better or any initiatives that they were aware of.

Action Point

A report to be brought to a future committee around foster care, showing targets, recruitment figures, retention figures and finances for scrutiny, challenge and to support Corporate Parenting.

What was the distance from Thurrock that children are placed when recorded as outside the Borough?

·       Anything over 20 miles outside the Borough.  It was noted, these figures also included unaccompanied asylum seekers which would always show as more than 20 miles from their home.

Action Point

Data brought to committee on children placed outside the Borough to be split into two, one showing figures for Children born in Thurrock and one part showing those born outside of Thurrock, including unaccompanied asylum seekers.

How quickly were health assessments carried out?  How could support be given to help clear the backlog with health assessments?  How were CAMHS managing to support wellbeing?

·              A paediatrician had been recruited.  This should clear some of the backlog.  CAMHS supported the Council and helped with assessment when a priority was identified. They had very good outcomes. 

Health assessments were a statutory requirement and delays had an ongoing detrimental effect on the children and the service.  We were falling below our targets. What were NELFT doing to rectify this as they were not fulfilling their contract?

·              NELFT were looking at additional funding to recruit additional an paediatrician but was also looking at different ways to deliver the service, so onus not placed entirely on paediatric services.  It was a priority to have a sustainable solution.  No child would wait for medical treatment if they had any medical needs. Children were registered with a G.P. when they come into care and steps were taken to ensure any health needs are met.

Action Point

A meeting to be set up with Councillor Watson and Safeguarding nurse with a view to discussing this in depth.   Email addresses to be exchanged.

Action Point

Head of ICB to bring data and a Report to Corporate Parenting Committee regarding Health Care Assessments.  To include tangible figures against targets for scrutiny and challenge.

RESOLVED:

1.1      Members noted improvements in Children’s Social Care and noted the work that was undertaken to ensure good and improving performance.

1.2   Members scrutinised the performance data and provided challenge to the service as required on how, as corporate parents they provide appropriate services, keep children and young people safe and promote good outcomes.  Councillor Speight Abstained following debate regarding the wording of the recommendation.