Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 May 2024 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 May 2024 were agreed as an accurate record.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and other registrable and non-registrable interests they may have in relation to any items(s) of business on today’s agenda.

There were none.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was none.

To receive a verbal update on the Protected Characteristic Working Group.

The Corporate Parenting Board received a verbal update from the Youth Service Co-Ordinator on the Protected Characteristic Working Group, starting with a response to the two actions below, arising from the last meeting of the Board:

• For the Board to receive a summary of information from past meetings of the Protected Characteristic Working Group about young people’s views of a protected characteristic as a benefit or concern.

• For the Board to receive an update on the actions undertaken by other Local Authorities to embed Corporate Parenting principals or protected characteristics in their respective Equalities Strategies.

The Children in Care Council Co-Ordinator and Participation and Collaboration Officer explained that there had been three sessions with groups of 12 to 15 young people, with characteristics reflective of the wider borough. The Board heard that feedback from the sessions had been that young people were struggling to understand what a protected characteristic would mean later in their life, that they would still like more information before reaching a decision, and that the characteristic should be ‘opt-in’. The Children in Care Council Co-Ordinator explained that most of the young people had been interested in how the protected characteristic would affect them, their wider community, and their peers. The Board heard that a survey had been sent out and that 43 responses had been received; 67% of respondents thought that ‘care experience’ should be a protected characteristic, 23% were undecided, and 9% thought that it should not be. It was explained that stigma had not been identified as a significant concern amongst young people, but that 12% of responses had indicated that the characteristic was not something young people wanted right now. The Board heard that there did not seem to be an overall resistance to the adoption of a protected characteristic amongst young people, but it was acknowledged that some young people felt it may carry a stigma.

The IRO Service Manager explained that they had attended a forum of Local Authorities centred on the adoption of care experience as a protected characteristic. The Board heard that other Councils had tabled motions to adopt care experience as a protected characteristic as a catalyst to incorporating corporate parenting principles throughout their organisations, but that this work had already begun in Croydon following the launch of Croydon’s first Corporate Parenting Strategy & Care Experienced Young People Strategy at Cabinet in October 2023. The IRO Service Manager highlighted that including care experience in Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) had resulted in the biggest impact in changing services for young people at other Local Authorities. The Board were informed that the protected characteristic could give weight in discussions with other departments (outside of Children’s Social Care) and that involving young people in the consultation over adopting the characteristic was vital. It was highlighted that the intersectionality between ‘care experience’ and other characteristics also needed to be considered. The Board heard that many local authorities had limited the characteristic to only local children and young people and that the definition of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30/24

To receive a verbal update from the Children’s Participation Team and Children in Care Council.

The Corporate Parenting Board received an update from the Children’s Participation Team. The Children in Care Council Co-Ordinator shared a presentation (Appendix 2) with the Board. The Board heard that two Young Scrutineers (Ambassadors) had begun to work with the Croydon Safeguarding Partnership; that Ambassadors were supporting the Dementia Café that occurs every third Monday of the month at Croydon Clocktower; that there had been a successful launch of Director’s Mentoring with three Director’s currently mentoring three Ambassadors; and young people had successfully pitched a ‘House Project’ proposal to Croydon leadership.

The Board received an update on the Care Leavers Forum and heard all care experienced young people aged between 18 and 25 had been reached via notify.gov to provide information on the local offer, including the Care Leavers Forum, Ambassador programme, and other participation opportunities. 143 young people, from the total cohort of 998, had engaged with the Council, and 41 care leavers were actively participating with the Children's Participation Team. The Children in Care Council Co-Ordinator informed the Board that 25 Ambassadors had now been on-boarded and had undertaken 101 hours of work with officers between April and July 2024.

The Board heard about the Children's Participation Team’s ‘Summer Offer’, which included an ‘Ambassador Academy’ (which looked at developing young people to advocate for themselves) and ‘Lil Heroes Super Tuesdays’ (for care experienced young people aged 4 and 11). The IRO Service Manager explained that carers would be notified about the Summer Offer and that a survey would be conducted on the kind of offer that young people and their carers were looking for.

JD spoke about their role as an Ambassador and explained that they enjoyed being a part of change in the Council through its transformation work. The Board heard that their Ambassador role had helped JD to become more confident. The Chair praised the work being done by the Children's Participation Team and the Ambassador programme.

The Board asked how participation with the Care Leavers Forum compared with neighbouring boroughs and whether Ambassadors were representative of the care experienced cohort in Croydon. The Children in Care Council Co-Ordinator responded that the Ambassadors were a diverse group of young people, but that work was ongoing to ensure that the programme was representative of the borough. The Children in Care Council Co-ordinator explained that Ambassadors also fed back viewpoints from their community and peers. The IRO Service Manager informed the Board that the Ambassador programme had been developed in Gloucester; their model had focussed on fewer Ambassadors doing more work, whereas Croydon’s model looked at having a larger number of Ambassadors doing slightly less to get a better reflection of the borough’s diversity.

ACTION – For the Children in Care Council Co-Ordinator to provide some information on diversity in the Ambassador programme at the next meeting of the Board, including information on how this reflected the characteristics of care experienced young people in the borough.

The Project & Improvement Manager and Children’s Social Care Service Manager updated the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31/24

To receive a verbal update on the Housing Sub-Group.

The Corporate Parenting Panel received a verbal update on the Housing Sub-Group discussion which had taken place in June 2024 and considered the Annual Report in the supplement. The Subject Matter Expert summarised the Annual Report and explained that this was the first annual report from a Board Sub-Group. The Board heard about the ‘House Project’ pilot and also how young people would be involved in designing a proposal for a new care experienced specific supported housing provision within the borough. The Housing Solutions Transformation Lead explained that the Council was seeking a housing standard and that hopefully others authorities would follow the example set by Croydon. The Board heard that there had been consideration of what this standard would cover and how best to set young people up for success in new homes. It was explained that there also needed to be consideration of how often young people were checked in with, as living by themselves was a major transition that involved tasks young people might not be aware of or familiar with. The Board heard that a supported housing review was taking place to see how this offer was working; Homeless Link were supporting this work to review if the offer was correct and to ascertain what it was that young people wanted. The Housing Solutions Transformation Lead emphasised the importance of feedback from young people and explained that the specifications for the new provision would be reviewed by young people.

The Board heard that the Care Leavers Housing Pathway Panel considered the housing cases of young people who had high support needs and for whom accommodation in the private rented sector would have a detrimental effect on their transition to independent living. The Housing Solutions Transformation Lead explained that the Panel had reviewed the cases of 44 young people so far. The Board heard that a Housing Officer was now situated in Children’s Social Services to promote a more ‘whole Council approach’, alongside the ‘Joint Housing and Children’s Social Care Protocol’. Members were informed that the Council was always looking for additional accommodation stock through a number of different avenues.

The Chair agreed that work on housing had significantly progressed over the last year and commented that the ‘Joint Protocol’ was now starting to show positive results. The Children’s Social Care Service Manager highlighted work on ‘Young Inspectors’ and suggested the programme be included in housing work for care experienced young people.

The Board asked about the housing demand for care experienced young people and available supply. The Subject Matter Expert explained that young people who were ‘staying put’ would be reviewed by the Care Leavers Housing Pathway Panel to identify their needs and ensure they were on a housing pathway that could be reviewed earlier if needed. The Housing Solutions Transformation Lead explained that the Council had to make decisions about how best to use its limited housing stock, and that the Council had decided to make care experienced young people a priority group. The Subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/24

For the Board to receive the Fostering Annual Report 2023–2024, Children’s Social Care Fostering Service Statement of Purpose 2024-2025, and Children’s Social Care Private Fostering Service Statement of Purpose 2024-2025.

The Board received the Fostering Annual Report 2023–2024, Children’s Social Care Fostering Service Statement of Purpose 2024-2025, and Children’s Social Care Private Fostering Service Statement of Purpose 2024-2025. The Service Manager (Fostering) introduced the item and summarised the reports.

The Chair asked about the outcomes from the Fostering Hub and heard that a report on this was being compiled containing feedback from young people and foster carers. Initial feedback from foster carers had been extremely positive and it was explained that the Hub had helped with foster carer retention. The Board heard that there would be positive foster carer recruitment targets in future years and that it was hoped schemes such as the Fostering Hub would help to ensure these targets could be met.

Members heard that the Fostering Hub had provided additional support in cases of emergencies, situations where quick responses were needed, and in helping to resolve issues in placements where these could have broken down. The Board were informed that the Council was looking at the scope to launch more Fostering Hubs. The Service Manager (Fostering) explained that they would like to see a special guardianship family included in a future Hub.

The Chair asked about challenges with foster care recruitment, and heard that these had been exacerbated by the housing crisis, challenges with the cost of living, competition from Independent Fostering Agencies, and historic reputational issues. The Board heard that the Council was seeking to address this in a number of ways, including increased support for foster carers, better communication, and innovation. The Chair asked about the capacity of the Fostering Team and heard that the average caseload was around 11 or 12 foster carers per supervising social worker. Members were informed that this compared well with historic caseloads and neighbouring boroughs.

The Board queried the definition of 2.5 years as a stable or long term placement and heard that this reflected government guidance. The Director of Children's Social Care explained that CLA20 and CLA21 in the Performance Report covered this data.

The Performance report for June 2024 is attached.

The Corporate Parenting Board received the Performance report for June 2024. The Director of Children’s Social Care introduced the item and summarised the report.

ACTION (from 1/05/2024) – For an update on Pathway Plans to be given at future meetings of the Panel.

The Board heard that the new Pathway Plan template had been implemented and training would be provided to all social workers; the template would be reviewed in three months to evaluate how it was working with feedback from young people and social workers. The Chair commented that they were happy to see improvements to Pathway Plans which had been a regular topic of discussion at Board meetings.

Members commented that indicators for Care Leavers were missing from the report. The Director of Children’s Social Care acknowledged this and explained that an updated version of the report would be circulated to the Board following the meeting.

ACTION – For the Director of Children’s Social Care to circulate an updated copy of the Performance Report, including Care Leaver indicators.

The Board discussed CLA18, and asked why the figure for May 2024 was 0%; the CLA Designated Health Professional advised that this data had not been updated and was better than reported.  It was explained that whilst the target had not been met, the average range for initial health assessments delivered following a child became looked after was around 24 to 34 days. The CLA Designated Health Professional explained that delays were often a result of requests for health assessments not arriving promptly following the child or young person entering care; once the requests for assessments were received, these happened relatively quickly. The Board queried why there were delays to Children’s Social Care requesting these assessments and the Director of Children’s Social Care explained that these could be missed due to the volume of tasks that needed to be completed when a child came into care. Whilst the assigned social worker was responsible for raising the request, the service was looking at a whole team approach to utilise the capacities of team managers and colleagues to speed up processes and ensure there were not unnecessary delays. The importance of quality oversight and supervision was also highlighted.

ACTION – For the Board to receive an update on improvements to indicator CLA18 and for some commentary to be provided on future Performance Reports for consistently red indicators.

The Board asked about CLA20 and stability for care experienced young people in Croydon. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that this indicator only looked at children under 16, in care for 2.5 years, and in the same placement for over two years. The Board heard that the change measured long term fostering or kinship care; it was acknowledged that the target was ambitious and that Croydon had historically had a large number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), who were more likely to remain in a single placement. The Board heard that, as UASC numbers decreased, it was likely that performance against the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34/24