Agenda item

The Director of Safeguarding, Partnerships & Quality Assurance introduced the report and provided an overview of Corporate Parenting Responsibilities. The report focussed on reiterating the role of the Council in looking after and protecting children and young people who are looked after by the Local Authority.

It was reported that at the end of October 2021, the Council was  corporate parent to 383 children under the age of 18 and 508 young people aged 18 – 25. There were a variety of reasons why children entered care, but this was mainly due to abuse and neglect. The London Borough of Hillingdon had a significant cohort of children (27%) who were in care due to being unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). The average number of UASC for authorities was around 6%. The Committee heard information about the virtual schools team, the role and work of the Corporate Parenting Panel and case study examples of successes.

In terms of risk and safeguarding, it was explained that officers always engaged with children, conducting assessments and the children were involved in co-producing their plans which were then reviewed by Independent Reviewing Officers. The Committee was informed that children were always invited to take part in the review meetings and their voices were taken into account. Plans were tailored towards each individual chid and reflected how they felt.

It was explained that the process of missing children was continuously reviewed with the introduction of the new return to home interviews. Information obtained at these interviews were used to assess and determine how safeguards could be put into place. It was reported that approximately 100 children had chosen to have interviews with allocated workers demonstrating the strong trust and bond in relationships.

An innovative and unique initiative had also been introduced in Hillingdon whereby children could select their own social workers (using social worker profiles with pictures and hobbies) rather than being an allocated social worker leading to an increase in engagement.

The Committee was advised that a breakdown of the types of accommodation children were living in, whether in or out borough, would be provided to the Members outside the meeting. Most children were in foster placements however there were a large number of children over the age of 16 who are Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers and who are living in semi-independent homes. The Council always tried to find accommodation locally to avoid disruption to lives however this was dependent on circumstances as some children needed to be placed further away to avoid different forms of risk and exploitation.

It was noted that the London Borough of Hillingdon was a port authority and there was a high number of UASC. Members were informed that the Council was well prepared to receive UASC, providing the right assessments, using translation services and close liaison with a Home Office officer that was based at the Council. It was acknowledged that some areas of support could be challenging however social workers liaised closely with other teams to identify the best solutions.

In terms of childrens’ choices in schooling, it was reported that as per statutory requirements each child had a Personal Education Plan (PEP) overseen by the Council’s virtual school Headteacher. Hillingdon had a dedicated virtual schools team and within ten days of a child becoming looked after, a personal education plan would have been developed detailing learning needs and ability.  The Council tried to keep children in a London Borough of Hillingdon school if there were already placed in one to maintain stability and ESOL courses were offered to UASC.

The Committee welcomed the excellent report and interesting case studies. It was acknowledged that there was a collective responsibility for the children and young people and the corporate parenting pack for Members set a good understanding of the role. Officers were commended for their work.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee:

1.    noted the contents of the report.

2.    continued to embed the corporate parenting ethos in the workings of the Committee and champion them across the Council.