Agenda item

As the criminalisation of looked after children (LAC) fell within the remit of more than one Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Chairman and Labour Lead of the Children, Young People and Learning Policy Overview Committee had been invited to participate in this item. 

Mr Tom Murphy, the Council's Assistant Director of Early Intervention Prevention & SEND, advised that the Strategy and Protocol attached to the report set out the activity between the police, social care and youth offending, primarily around placements.  The effectiveness of the Strategy and Protocol would be regularly monitored by the Corporate Parenting Board. 

Where a LAC had committed a crime, staff in children's homes would be more likely to call the police than foster carers who tended to deal with the situation as they would with their own child.  As such, consideration needed to be given to how the police were equipped to make a judgement about an individual child (culturally and professionally) in a care home. 

It was noted that Children in Care (CiC) were disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system.  As the corporate parent, the Council had a responsibility to work with the police to put local arrangements in place to ensure that proportionate/balanced action was taken to deliver justice. 

It was suggested that the police formed a wider part of the community parenting community and recognised that the relationship between the Council and the police was good.  Mr Murphy noted that the protocol had helped the Council to assist the police in their duties and raise awareness of people in care that had issues which made their transition from child to adult more challenging. 

One of the three children's homes in the Borough had had 51 police attendances in the last quarter (37 of which were in relation to one child).  Mr Murphy advised that the majority of police attendances had been curfew related. 

Members were advised that there were currently 12 children currently deemed to be missing from care.  However, 7 of these were thought to be immigration absconders.  Mr Murphy would forward further details regarding absconders to Democratic Services for circulation to Members. 

It was suggested that children in foster care were less likely to have a lot of other children at home and therefore proportionately less likely to be exposed to negative influences.  Furthermore, children admitted to care homes were likely to be older so it was more challenging to correct poor behaviour.  It was noted that children could become LAC because they had a criminal episode or could have a criminal episode because they were LAC. 

Concern was expressed that children in foster care experienced breakdowns in communication with their carers because of the child's criminal behaviour.  Furthermore, appearances in court were seen by some of these children as a badge of honour and they needed to be educated about the impact of the behaviour in terms of their future.  As the application of principles and approach in the Strategy and Protocol applied to children foster care and care homes, Mr Murphy would ensure that the documents were updated to be more explicit.  It was suggested that this education be delivered by the care homes and that consideration be given to addressing the emotional root causes of the behaviour before it became an issue.  Programmes such as Unique Swagga offered young people a diversionary opportunity to turn their lives around. 

It was queried whether it needed to be the police that dealt with all calls from care homes as this could result in the badge of honour or the start of a stigma.  Furthermore, it was suggested that there would be benefit to postponing police action in some cases and clear guidelines on when to charge children.  As such, Members requested that the wording in paragraph 2.3 be updated to state that there would be a presumption that the police would not necessarily arrest.  Mr Murphy would revisit this wording to ensure that the best solution was derived from the given circumstances. 

With regard to out of borough placements, the Council was still the corporate parent to these children.  It was suggested that consideration be given to putting children in placements outside of Hillingdon where they were taken away from local negative influences and potentially minimising the risk of further offending.  It was also queried as to the extent that CiC were given opportunities that were normal to other children, such as membership of uniformed groups (Air Cadets, Police Cadets, Scouts, Guides, St John's Ambulance, etc), sports clubs and creative activities, and whether they took up these opportunities.  The Hillingdon Virtual School provided activities for LAC at certain times of the year but these were not clubs where the children could be part of a group of children that regularly met.  Mr Murphy would establish whether there was any data available on memberships and, if there was, forward it to Democratic Services for circulation to the Committee. 

Members requested that the services provided by the Council (and perhaps other organisations) be linked to the Strategy and Protocol.  Mr Murphy noted that paragraph 2.6 of the Protocol mentioned signposting to other services/partners.  However, consideration would need to be given to how the wider offer could be plugged in. 

It was noted that one of the Corporate Parenting Sub Groups had been investigating the possibility of a leisure card for LAC.  This type of scheme had been implemented in other parts of the country with the possibility of reciprocal arrangements with other local authorities where their LAC had been placed out of borough.  Progress was being made in Hillingdon. 

Concern was expressed that, if the police attended, it was a judgement call as to whether or not the young person was arrested which could then result in a criminal record.  LAC taken to a police station were likely to have to wait up to eight hours before someone arrived to represent them who they may never have met before (it was important to get a social worker there as soon as possible to support the child in the same way that other parents would).  These children would be given different advice and treated differently to non-LAC.  It was noted that if every parent phoned the police every time their child missed their curfew, the police would be very very busy. 

CiC were often labelled as being trouble.  There were some school staff who had complained about the number of LAC that they had to take in.  These staff should be reminded that LAC were children and should not be labelled in this way. 

It was suggested that the Strategy and Protocol needed to be forwarded to the LSCB and other bodies to ensure that there was buy in and the expectations of other agencies needed to be clear.  Mr Murphy advised that the content of these documents had been coproduced by the police, Council and other partners. 

Concern was expressed about the possible closure of Mulberry Parade Children's Home.  Mr Murphy would speak to colleagues in Social Care to establish what was happening.  It was suggested that the future care of these children needed to be considered by the Corporate Parenting Board. 

The Committee wanted to stress that crime was not an inevitability for LAC.  It would be important to ensure that all agencies signed up to the approach being proffered and that the police identified alternative action to arrest. 

RESOLVED:  That:

1.    Mr Murphy forward further details regarding absconders to Democratic Services for circulation to Members;

2.    Mr Murphy ensure that the Strategy and Protocol documents were more explicit about the inclusion of foster care;

3.    Mr Murphy establish whether any data was available on memberships and, if there was, forward it to Democratic Services for circulation to the Committee,

4.    Mr Murphy speak to colleagues in Social Care to establish what was happening with Mulberry Parade Children's Home; and

5.    the presentation be noted.