Agenda item

To consider a report seeking approval to revise and increase the ‘offer’ for Foster Carers regarding the fees and allowances that they receive.

Portfolio Holder: Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Strategic Directorate: Children and Young People’s Services

The Chair welcomed the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and the Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young people introduced the report and outlined proposals to improve the care experience for children in Rotherham by ensuring that, wherever possible, they were looked after in a foster family environment. In order to retain and recruit foster carers, Children and Young People’s Services sought approval to revise and increase its offers for foster carers regarding the fees and allowances that they received. The Cabinet Member outlined that foster carers fees and allowances had not been reviewed for some time.

It was noted that at the end of May 2022, Rotherham had 542 children in care. Of these 79% were placed in family-based setting, however more children were placed with foster families via an independent fostering agency (IFA) than with in-house foster carers. It was reported that Rotherham had a shortage of all foster placements but particularly placements for children requiring enhanced care, adolescents and larger sibling groups. This resulted in too many children and young people placed out of the Borough or in residential placements because local capacity was insufficient.

A review was undertaken in May 2022 which included a regional benchmarking exercise and consultation with other local authorities within the Yorkshire region. The benchmarking activity highlighted when compared to an IFA or other local authorities, the RMBC offer was less competitive in relation to payments linked to mileage, third and subsequent placements and enhanced fees when supporting children with more complex needs.

The Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care outlined that it was anticipated that by implementing the proposals, it would support the retention and increase the placement capacity of current foster carers. In particular this would support RMBC to grow carers who were willing to care for the Borough's most complex young people. In addition, the improved renumeration and fostering offer would attract and incentivise new foster carers to join the Council’s fostering service to provide care for a broader spectrum of children with more complex needs.

A full rationale for the changes to the fees and allowances requested was included in the report, along with details of the financial implications. It was noted that the annual unit cost of an in-house placement was £19.2k compared with £45.6k for an IFA placement. It was therefore imperative that RMBC increased the number of children with in-house foster carers and reduced the numbers in independent fostering arrangements While the report identified increases in payments and allowances, the overall expectation was an invest-to-save model, with savings achieved as reliance on IFA placements fell.

The Chair opened the discussion to Board Members. The proposals and the additional investment were welcomed. Assurance was sought if the training and support package currently on offer to in-house carers would still be in place. It was confirmed that this was the case. It was noted that some independent foster carers were returning to in-house provision because of the enhancements on offer.

Clarification was sought about levels of confidence that the proposals would deliver the desired outcomes of attracting more in-house foster carers. In response, it was outlined that the proposals gave a message to existing foster carers that their services were valued and they could be renumerated accordingly as professional foster carers providing full-time care. The offer would expand the provision that the existing foster cohort could deliver, including day care. It was anticipated that the new offer was competitive to attract new foster carer households who may wish to work for a local not-for-profit service for a similar financial package to that on offer from the private sector.

Further details were requested on skills progression and how this would be supported.  The intention was to support foster carers to meet the needs of a child based on a ‘good match’ rather than their skill level being a barrier to fostering a child. An example was given of a level 2 foster carer being supported to develop skills to foster a child with more complex needs if the placement was deemed suitable and in the child’s best interest.

Details were sought if consideration had been given to reducing household outgoings alongside the proposals to increase fees and allowance. The Assistant Director outlined that other enhancements may be required to allow Rotherham foster carers to live and work from home. A task and finish group was to be established to look at this in further depth. The Cabinet Member signalled that she was open to different ideas to enhance the offer, including use of the Rothercard scheme should this be appropriate.

It was outlined that in respect of skill levels, each foster carer received an annual assessment. Most foster carers enter at level 1 and progressed to level 2 following an assessment. Level 3 and 4 were awarded based on level of understanding, capacity, commitment to training and evidence of learning and care given.  Attendance of foster carers at recruitment events and other training was also encouraged to share learning by experience. Foster carers also attended Fostering Panel which provided assurance that skill levels were assessed appropriately.

Clarification was sought if the proposals would have any impact on the provision of Special Guardianship Orders (SGO).  Consideration had been given to ensure that in achieving permanence for a child through a SGO, that renumeration was matched and needs were assessed early to ensure that the support was in place.

It was noted that the competitor analysis (Appendix 2) detailed the offer from other local authorities and independent providers however, clarification was sought on what was different in what was being proposed in Rotherham. In response, it was noted that there was very little detail available on how competitors retained foster carers. Views had been sought from Rotherham carers to ask what made a difference to them. The importance of capturing the foster carers voice and using it to improve the service was reiterated.

Clarification was sought if the proposals would attract more new foster carers or greater numbers of existing carers from the independent sector. It was anticipated that there would be movement from the independent sector. It was noted that this in itself would bring greater efficiencies as the local authority could directly influence foster household and better determine local placements for Rotherham children.

Clarification was sought about the mileage rate proposals and if this would be flat rate payment to be considered as part of earnings or moved to tax-free allowances.  A written answer would be given on the points raised.

Further details were sought on the rationale behind the historical lower third child fees It was noted fostering had developed considerably over recent decades and fostering standards outlined clear expectations about the standard of care, how individuals needs should be assessed and met and household environments.

Clarification was sought on the communication and marketing strategy. The Assistant Director emphasised that it was important that the message ‘speaks’ to Rotherham foster carers about the difference their contribution would make to Rotherham children and that they would receive competitive income for their work.

Further details were sought to establish if a review was built into the proposals to ensure that the desired outcomes were delivered. It was outlined that an annual fostering service review would be produced that would cover these issues. It was also explained that Corporate Parenting Panel would maintain oversight of progress and the views of the Looked After Children’s Council and foster carers would be sought on impact and outcomes.

In summing up, the Chair commented on the commitment of Rotherham foster carers and asked that the thanks of the Board be put on record.

Resolved:

1.    That Cabinet be advised that the recommendations be supported.

2.    That an annual review of the achievements of Fostering Service is undertaken, including a report on the impact and outcomes of the changes to fostering fees and allowances.