Agenda item
Family Homes for Plymouth Children
Minutes:
Councillor Laing (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children’s Social Care, Culture and Communications) presented the report to the Panel and highlighted the following key points:
|
a) |
The report outlines the progress and strategic initiatives undertaken by Children’s Social Care to transform practice for children at risk of entering care;
|
|
b) |
The report emphasised the importance of improving placement sufficiency and outcomes for children and young people, ensuring that they were looked after in family homes in and close to Plymouth;
|
|
c) |
This programme of work addressed the local authorities sufficiency aim to provide the right number and types of placements to meet the needs of children in care;
|
|
d) |
The report highlighted the increased demand for services due to generational neglect, mental health issues and substance misuse. The report outlined steps taken to enhance foster care recruitment support for complex needs and market development for residential care;
|
|
e) |
Key objectives included keeping children within their family networks where possible and increasing the number of in house foster carers, reducing the reliance on high cost residential placements;
|
|
f) |
The programme focussed on ensuring value for money and improving outcomes for children by providing stable family based care settings;
|
|
g) |
The local authority would be implementing the Mockingbird model in relation to its in house foster care offer. |
In response to questions raised it was reported that:
|
h) |
The Council was beginning to pursue its own residential care as an option. Not only was it expected to provide a cost benefit, but most importantly, it would allow children and young people that came into the care of the local authority to remain in Plymouth and to maintain their own networks and identity;
|
|
i) |
The council were trying to engage families that were already in kinship arrangements to ensure they had the right support available to them;
|
|
j) |
Future reports would include case studies within reports;
|
|
k) |
Plymouth continued to drive its recruitment of foster carers;
|
|
l) |
Funding was received from national government for the cohort of UASC in Plymouth’s care but was also covered by the council’s own budget;
|
|
m) |
The Virtual School also received funding for UASC as part of Pupil Premium funding plus for their education;
|
|
n) |
The issues around placement’s required a national discussion with government. It was felt that although Plymouth had attempted to reduce costs, the council had gone as far as it could within the national frameworks and legislation and government needed to address the issues faced by many local authorities including Plymouth;
|
|
o) |
Increases in the cared for children population in Plymouth was multi-factorial including COVID, generational neglect, continued patterns of social care involvement which were never resolved despite interventions, cost of living and poverty;
|
|
p) |
Early Help, preventative interventions for teenagers undertaken by the local authority was having a significant impact in preventing those young people entering care;
|
|
q) |
Plymouth had seen a significant increase in the number of families in care proceedings over 26 weeks and conversations were happening with the judiciary in Plymouth. It was recognised to be a national situation with the delays due to the COVID pandemic;
|
|
r) |
The Council employed a court progression officer who monitored all court cases undertaken by the local authority, to help bring the number of families in court proceedings over 26 weeks down to appropriate levels. |
The Panel agreed to:
1. Recommend that Plymouth City Council collaborates with Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in the delivery of in house residential provision;
2. For the Fostering service to provide information on the recruitment of foster carers and to encourage them to be champions of Fostering.
Supporting documents:
-
2024 10 10 TS Family Homes for Plymouth Children Scrutiny Oct 2024, item 72.
PDF 429 KB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 72./2 is restricted
