Agenda item

Ian Walker, Head of Service, reported on the implications for Looked After Children, previously Looked After Children and Care Leavers as a result of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

The Act was intended to improve the support for Looked After Children (LAC), previously Looked After Children and Care Leavers, promote the welfare and safeguarding of children and make revised provisions about the regulation of Social Workers.

There were 64 Sections in the Act of which the first 10 had direct relevance to LAC and Care Leavers:-

Section 1

Introduced the 7 principles of Corporate Parenting which local authorities must give due regard to for both LAC and Care Leavers whether or not they were the local authority who looked after the child (set out in the report submitted). 

The Corporate Parenting Panel would need to review and formally adopt the principles and then benchmark current practice against them.  The Panel may then need to agree and implement an action plan in order to ensure that any shortfalls were reviewed and addressed.

Section 2

A requirement for local authorities to publish information about the services it offered to Care Leavers which may assist them in preparing for adulthood and independent living.  The services may include health and wellbeing, education and training, employment, accommodation and participation in society.  It was distinct from the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) local offer stipulated by the Children and Families Act 2014.

Although Rotherham had a formal offer to its Care Leavers, as approved by the Corporate Parenting Panel in February, 2017, it would benefit from a review as the focus on the health and wellbeing of Care Leavers and their participation in society was not as well developed as it could be.  In addition, the Leaving Care Team had instigated further developments over the past 12 months including a formal offer for Care Leavers who were pregnant or young parents.

Section 3

A requirement for local authorities to appoint a personal adviser for Care Leavers who requested one up until the age of 25 regardless of whether the young person intended to pursue education or training.  The local authority also had a duty to carry out an assessment of the young person’s needs and to provide the necessary advice and support.  This duty had come into force as from 1^st April, 2018.

A scoping exercise had been undertaken with Trafford Council who had been offering such support for a number of years which suggested that approximately 15% of Care Leavers were actively receiving support in any given week.  On average this equated to each young person receiving 2 hours Personal Adviser time per week.  In Rotherham this would equate to approximately one full-time equivalent Personal Adviser role.

The Leaving Care Team had recently received approval to increase the number of Personal Advisers and, therefore, it was anticipated that the additional function would be assimilated within existing staff resources.

Section 4

Placed a duty on local authorities to make advice and information available to parents, designated teachers in maintained schools and academies to promote the educational achievement of Previously Looked After Children.  A local authority must appoint an officer employed by them or another authority to discharge the duty to provide advice and information.

Section 5

Placed a duty on the governing body of a maintained school to designate a member of school staff to have responsibility for promoting the educational achievement of Previously Looked After Children including those who were now the subject of adoption, special guardianship or Child Arrangements Order.

Meetings had already taken pace between the Virtual School, the Head of LAC Service, Therapeutic Team manager, Post-Adoption Team, Post-SGO Social Worker and the post-Adoption Therapeutic Intervention Worker to consider how to work in collaboration in the discharge of the new statutory responsibilities of the Virtual School. 

Section 6

Imposed a provision on all existing and new academy agreements requiring the proprietor of an academy to designate a member of staff to have responsibility for promoting the educational achievement of relevant children and young people.  The proprietor must ensure that person undertook training and had regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

The Virtual School in Rotherham would ensure that all academies in the Council were made of the new legal requirement.

Section 7

Amendment of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 to require the governing body of a maintained school to ensure that the designated teacher for Looked After pupils had regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State.

The Virtual School in Rotherham would ensure that maintained schools were made aware of the new legal requirement.

Section 8

Extended the definition of the permanent provisions in the Children Act 1989 so that it included kinship care, adoption and other types of long term care.  The courts would now be required to consider the impact on the child concerned of any harm they had or were likely to have suffered, their current and future needs and the way in which the long term plan for the child’s upbringing would meet those current and future needs.  Social Workers would have to give full consideration to the issues in the child’s Care Plan and as a result they may require some additional guidance from the Public Law Outline Care Manager to ensure they abided by this additional expectation.

Section 9

Amended the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and required courts and adoption agencies to consider the child’s relationship with their prospective adopters in decisions relating to the adoption if the child had been placed with those prospective adopters.

Section 10

Amended legislation to allow local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland.

Some consultation had already taken place with partners who would be required to support some of the new requirements but further awareness raising would need to be undertaken with maintained schools and academies within Rotherham.

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-

-          The offer to care leavers who were pregnant/young parents included physical support in terms of accommodation and financial support as well as emotional support.  There were a number of young people who had evidenced their success in being young parents and, as a result, a peer group was being set up so they could “buddy” a young person who became pregnant

-          Clarification was sought on the financial implications of extending the support to care leavers up to the age of 25 years. Work had been undertaken with Trafford Council had enabled an estimate of the number of young people aged 24-25 years that may seek financial support of the Authority.  There was confidence that by managing the processes the Service would have sufficient resources with the additional Personal Adviser to ensure continuity of meeting the needs of those care leavers

-          At present the Service was confident it could manage the current situation, however, if the number of LAC continued to rise then there would be significant pressure.  Currently there were 167 children in scope for Right Child Right Care and so far it had achieved almost 1/3 of the required discharges from care

-          The Virtual School was robust in challenging schools in their spending of the Pupil Premium on the LAC and would not allow it to be included within the whole school budget

-          There would be a new Social Worker Regulator with requirements as to how an Authority evidenced its ongoing professional practice

Resolved:-  (1)  That the changes in practice that the Act would require along with the specific implications there would be for Rotherham Children and Young People’s Services be noted.

(2)  That the Corporate Parenting Panel keep under review the implications of the Act as they developed.

(3)  That the Head of the Looked After Children Service inform the Senior Adviser, Scrutiny and Member Development, as to whether Pupil Premium funding was ringfenced.