Agenda item

 

To consider the progress made by the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board in 2025 and to note the areas of focus for 2026.

Consideration was given to the first Corporate Parenting Partnership Board Annual Report, introduced by the Cabinet Member/Deputy Leader which had been brought to Improving Lives Scrutiny to outline progress made over the past year in fulfilling corporate parenting responsibilities.

 

The report provided assurance on how partners had worked together to improve outcomes for children in care and care leavers, highlighting key achievements, challenges and the impact of partnership working. Corporate parenting was a shared responsibility across the Council and its partners and thanks were given to all contributors including young people.

 

The Chair welcomed to the meeting:-

 

·              Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member and Deputy Leader

·              Stuart Williams, Service Director for Children’s Social Care

 

Stuart Williams, Service Director for Children’s Social Care, in presenting the Annual Report outlined that it captured the collective work of the local authority, partners and young people over the previous twelve months, focusing on delivering high-quality, consistent care and support for children in care and care-experienced young people. He highlighted the significant achievements of the year, the priority areas for the year ahead and reaffirmed the Council’s ongoing commitment to improving outcomes for children in care.

 

By way of the presentation included in the agenda pack, the following was highlighted:-

 

·              Purpose of the report.

·              What was Corporate Parenting.

·              Key Achievements in 2025.

·              Ofsted Inspection – November, 2025.

·              Priorities for 2026.

 

A discussion and answer session ensued with Improving Lives Members and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

-               How had the redesigned Corporate Parenting Partnership Board impacted outcomes across education, health, emotional wellbeing and preparation for independence, noting the positive external validation that had been received.

 

The Service Director for Children’s Social Care explained that the redesign of the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board had been guided by two overarching priorities. The first was ensuring consistent and meaningful engagement with children and young people so that they set the tone and identified priority areas.

 

This was supported by a robust range of evidence, including quality assurance data, audit activity and peer review, to inform a comprehensive self-assessment of priorities.

 

The second priority was restructuring the Board’s work around six clear priority themes. Each meeting focused on a themed priority with children and young people undertaking work on that theme outside meetings and meeting directly with the Champion Member and Lead Officer. Their feedback was then reported back to the full Board, ensuring they were central to decision?making and acted as the measure of success. This approach enabled dedicated focus on specific areas, such as education, employment and training, supported by presentations from senior education officers and virtual school heads. It was also noted strengthened corporate ownership across the wider Council and partner organisations.

 

The Cabinet Member also added that the use of Champion Members and Link Officers reflected good practice and enabled meaningful work to take place between meetings, recognising both the limited number of meetings each year and the need to ensure children’s participation was purposeful.

 

It was noted that themes had been developed collaboratively with children and young people, allowing progress between meetings. Following the LGA peer review, more senior decision?makers had been present at meetings, improving responsiveness and reducing delays. Housing was cited as an example where senior attendance had enabled practical issues to be resolved more quickly. This redesign was described as a catalyst that had driven corporate parenting forward at pace.

 

-               What tangible examples of improved outcomes had arisen from the redesign of the Board.

 

The Service Director for Children’s Social Care highlighted two key examples. First, children and young people had contributed directly to foster carer training by shaping learning on what made a good foster carer. This work had influenced the “Skills to Foster” programme and had been particularly impactful for prospective carers. Second, priorities identified by care?experienced young people had informed changes to the housing allocations policy, helping translate young people’s views into operational policy change.

 

The Cabinet Member provided further assurance by noting that she had visited other local authorities, including Southampton and Middlesbrough, to observe their corporate parenting arrangements and that a lead member from Doncaster was due to observe Rotherham’s Board, reflecting recognition of effective practice.

 

The Head of Safeguarding highlighted the developmental benefits for young people involved in the Board, describing increased confidence, presentation skills and inclusion. Examples included a young person receiving a Children’s Champion award during Safeguarding Awareness Week and the growth of the Young Journalists group, which had interviewed senior leaders and produced newsletters.

 

-               Clarification was sought on children in care 2025 placement data on page 24 of the agenda pack, particularly the distinction between in?house and in?borough provision of 53% and 47%.

 

The Service Director for Children’s Social Care explained that in?house provision referred to Council?approved foster carers and Council?run residential homes, whilst non?in?house placements were typically commissioned through independent fostering providers. Furthermore. placements not classed as in?house could still be within Rotherham with placement decisions driven by children’s best interests given careful scrutiny.  Details of the placement data for children and young people would be collated and circulated.

 

-               Should community support be sought before opening new children’s residential homes.

 

The Cabinet Member explained that engagement with Ward Councillors took place where possible, but that children’s homes were typically small domestic properties and planning and regulatory constraints limited broader consultation. It was emphasised that children’s welfare was prioritised and that community understanding often improved once homes were established.

 

Further discussion focused on challenging public misconceptions about children in care and residential provision. Members acknowledged the need to change narratives while protecting children’s privacy.

 

Detail was provided on how home managers supported children’s inclusion in local communities through everyday activities that promoted belonging and wellbeing.

 

The Cabinet Member asked if there were instances where Ward Members were not being engaged in processes then if the details could be forwarded she would look into it.

 

-               Within the work done by the Cabinet Member around the country was there any examples of a Local Authority  or an independent fostering authority that had managed to tell its story in a way that was sensitive to the fact that these children had a right to privacy and how this narrative could be changed.

 

The Cabinet Member referred to the LGA’s Children and Families Committee and the mix of views and challenges around Post 16 residential placements.  The key issue appeared to be around Planning and how this narrative and language could be changed by working with young people and the challenges they faced when coming into care.

 

The Cabinet Member agreed to take the views back to see if any changes were possible to the narrative surrounding children in care and care leavers and how it could be positively reframed to challenge stigma and dispel common myths.

 

The Service Director for Early Help explained that there was something particularly important about how children’s homes engaged with local communities.  It was noted that highly skilled managers ran the homes and were actively involved in their local areas. Positive examples of children being integrated into their communities in ordinary but meaningful ways were provided, such as playing locally, building relationships with neighbours and being invited to birthday parties. Although these examples might appear small, they were highly significant for children in care and should be available to all children. Furthermore, it was important for managers and staff to feel part of the community and this was the narrative being supported across all homes.

 

An observation was shared where recently a young person in a meeting had shared a powerful account of their housing experiences, demonstrating the impact of the redesign and reinforced that the new approach was driving meaningful change.

 

-               The inclusion of named leads against actions in the action plan was welcomed, but clarification was sought on actions awaiting start dates or delayed when reading from the RAG status on Page 35 of the document pack.

 

The Service Director for Social Care confirmed the action plan was a live document, reviewed regularly, with progress with each Champion Officer discussed at monthly 1:1 meetings.  The updates were then collated into a report that was then presented to the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board at each meeting.  Some of the delays reflected ambition to meet young people’s expectations, such as developing an app rather than a basic alternative.

 

Officers were working extremely hard with partners and the plan would evolve over time with new actions included that aligned to the new priorities for 2026/27.

 

The Cabinet Member welcomed the positive step to have a named person to lead on key actions which reflected the changes of personnel.  In addition, there had also been progress on making meetings more accessible for young people with the inclusion of video pen portraits of Board members identifying who they were, what their role was and likes and dislikes.  This made Board Members more human to young people and hopefully would encourage greater feedback and a willingness to attend meetings with an eventual takeover challenge and an agenda set accordingly. 

 

The more work that could be done with the young journalists and the setting up of a communications team would provide more engagement and communication with the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board and the Children and Young People’s Partnership Board.  From the recent Ofsted visit, Inspectors were impressed with the capturing the voice of the young person.  It may not be possible to provide all what young people were requesting and manage their expectations, but where any requests made could not be met the young people would be advised why it could not be achieved.

 

-               Concern was raised about reliance on independent fostering agencies and the proportion of children in in?house provision and what action could be taken to lessen the use of independent fostering agencies.

 

The Service Director for Social Care explained that increasing in?house provision was a clear priority and outlined the strong recruitment, retention and support for foster carers, alongside innovative training aligned to children’s needs.

 

In terms of recruitment activity across Yorkshire and Humber, Rotherham was very strong in terms of the amount of applicants and the conversion rate to approval.  Rotherham’s offer was good and whilst the pace of recruitment had slowed, this was the case nationally.  There was still work to be undertaken and this remained a Children and Young People’s Services and a Council priority.

 

The Cabinet Member further added that Rotherham compared favourably with national averages and remained committed to increasing in?house provision.  Foster carers genuinely appreciated the amount of support provided by Rotherham and every effort would be made to increase the provision further.

 

The discussion concluded with consideration of proactive, programme?level communication to address misconceptions about children’s homes.

 

Members suggested broader engagement, including with parish councils, and it was acknowledged there may be a requirement to reflect further on how narrative change could be strengthened whilst still maintaining privacy and regulatory requirements.

 

The Service Director for Social Care described the engagement with local

residents as being an absolute priority when looking at in-house provision. The difficulty was that from a process perspective it had to be managed with clear provision on how this was launched and operated.  It was an expectation that ongoing discussions would take place with Ward Members, but not with residents until further in the process post planning and post Ofsted registration.  This had to be balanced and whilst the privacy of children in care had to be maintained, they had the same rights as the wider cohort of children and young people within Rotherham as community members.

 

There was often some misconception within the community about a children's home, but a good children's home should blend into a community.  That was a sign of success.

 

Location of a children’s home was key and it would not be where young people were fundamentally unsafe.  However, this needed to be managed in terms of the process and the checks and balances that run alongside.  Every location was risk assessed and all homes Ofsted validated.

 

-               Managing the misconception about children’s provision earlier to make it easier for them to integrate successfully into a community.

 

The Service Director for Socia Care reiterated that in terms of in-house provision communication with communities was limited, but later in the journey when submitting an application to Ofsted

 

The Cabinet Member would pick up on liaising with Parish Councils, but reiterated the suggestion around the narrative surrounding children in care and care leavers in the overall programme.

 

The Chair thanked Members for the discussion and the presentation and information by officers.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be received and the progress by the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board be noted.

 

(2)  That the areas of focus for 2026 also be noted.

 

(3)  That a breakdown of the Children in Care 2025 placement numbers be provided.

 

(4)  That the Cabinet Member be tasked with asking the LGA’s Children and Families Committee if they were aware of any work being undertaken to change the narrative surrounding children in care and care leavers and how it could be positively reframed to challenge stigma and dispel common myths.