Care Matters: transforming the lives of children and young people in care

Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is: 15 January 2007
Your comments must reach us by that date.

Please tick if you want us to keep your response confidential.

Name

Hampshire County Council

Organisation (if applicable)

Children's Services Directorate

Address:

Children's Services Department

The Castle

Winchester

Hampshire

SO23 8UG

Child in care (under 13)

Child in care (under 18)

Care leaver

Foster carer

Residential carer

Professional working with young people

Volunteer working with young people

Other

Please Specify: Local Authority

x

Local authority

School

Further or higher education institution

Private sector organisation

Voluntary and community sector organisation

Health organisation

Youth justice organisation

Other

Please Specify:

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

Officers, Elected Members and young people fully support the pledges. Hampshire County Council is already committed to this and has met with County Councillors to draft a pledge for Hampshire. This will be finalised in early January.

However, it is felt that there should also be a commitment to fulfil existing legislative requirements, since current statutory responsibilities do provide for prioritising the needs of children in care. Where a child has a disability, there needs to be special consideration to ensure that he/she is fully included in the provisions of any pledges.

The use of modern technology should be an integral part of developing the pledge, using text messaging and e-mail to ensure that LAs communicate with all children in care.

Young people are very much in favour of having a care council. Through this, they would like opportunities to work with councillors and managers to improve services. They also feel particularly strongly about having more influence over when they move on from care.

In two-tier authorities, close partnership working with district councils is required to fulfil commitments to improved access to sport and leisure activities. A vehicle for this would be the LAA.

However, the budget implications need to be fully understood and accepted by Government in order that Children's Services are funded appropriately to meet the identified needs of the service and the children.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

A greater emphasis needs to be placed on sustained preventative and intervention services (including when a child returns home). This is particularly the case when working with partners to achieve timely access to CAMHS.

Stability of placements was identified as a key element.

It is thought that having a learning mentor attached to each child in care is an excellent idea to raise attainment level. This could be peer mentoring.

Barriers identified by young people include the way in which they are stigmatised as being `low achievers' and `problem children'. This can affect perceptions in every aspect of their lives.

Comments:

As previously noted, there needs to be significant concentration on preventive services and the emphasis of the chapter is right. We welcome the notion of supporting families to enable them to take responsibility.

Proposals include:

a) Early opportunities for parent coaching that provides non-stigmatising support, at a point before families are in crisis

b) Support all workers in contact with families to be effective parent support workers, working to the National Occupational Standards for Working with Parents

c) Respite care is essential and should be provided with an immediate package of support and guidance to ensure that there is a possibility of change

d) Early parent education classes, especially for young parents in advance of problems arising

In order to reassert the responsibilities of parents, it is important to remove the stigma attached to parents seeking parental support - we should mainstream.

It may be advantageous to develop partnership contracts with parents whose children are at risk of coming into care.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

The care system is complex and challenging. We do not accept some of the crude analysis that the system is failing. But we do accept it can improve in most authorities including Hampshire. Sharing of best practice is key to such improvement.

Comments:

Messages from research documents were well received in the past. These may need updating and there can be better dissemination of existing research. This should focus on UK services as well as international models. Other countries may offer valuable comparisons but they are not always readily applicable to our services.

Comments:

All respondents agreed with the recommendations in the paper.

Developing whole family approaches is felt to be particularly important when supporting children living in families affected by mental health problems, domestic violence and substance misuse. There needs to be an emphasis on early identification and intervention as well as meeting needs during a crisis. Clear working protocols on these issues would need to be in place via LSCBs, supported by training programmes. In addition, there needs to be a clear understanding of how these issues are identified via the CAF process.

The caring role of the wider family network also needs to be identified in this process.

Comments:

Policy and process (nationally and locally) need to recognise the particular nature of family and friends carers. There needs to be a national policy framework and standards and regulations for them, rather than expecting them to fit into exiting fostering standards which are designed primarily for mainstream "stranger" foster carers. They should have the right to respite support, as well as coaching and developmental support with training designed to meet their specific needs.

Finance is also an issue that many family and friends carers struggle with - consideration needs to be given to a national benefit like any other carers' benefits to avoid the variation in practice between authorities.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

Recognition is needed that, in order to prevent children from coming into the care system, there are a number of families who will require sustained, long term support from Children's Services and their partners, especially health.

The "no order principle" contained within the Children Act 1989 was meant to ensure that children were maintained within their families unless court intervention could make a positive difference in their lives. This principle should be applied to admissions to the care system including Section 20 admissions.

We also need to recognise that if the care population is reduced in this way, it is likely to emphasise the concentration of more challenging children left within the system.

Yes

x

No

Not Sure

Comments:

All consultation feedback across the county council endorsed the principle of corporate parenting, recognising that across all services,

"Is this good enough for my child?"

should be the expectation for all children in care.

We were, however, disappointed with this section of the paper. We expected a chapter headed `corporate parenting' to have a greater emphasis on the role and leadership of Elected Members. Stakeholders also identified that all layers within the LA (including schools) should take a critical role in corporate parenting.

Yes

X

No

Not Sure

Comments:

In terms of the social care practice, there is no support from within Hampshire County Council. Stakeholders expressed concerns that this could lead to inconsistencies across the country depending on the funding available to such "practices", and to an escalation of costs as expensive packages become available for some children at the expense of funding available for others.

There are concerns about the assumption that `privatising' sections of work will improve outcomes for children in care. We fail to see the evidence for this argument.

Multi disciplinary teams are welcomed and thought more able to meet the complex needs of children in care. These principles are being carried through in Hampshire through the establishment of behaviour support teams, the education for children in care team and our new early intervention locality teams.

Yes

No

x

Not Sure

Comments:

In Hampshire there has been a mixed response to this. Professionals working with children are fearful that introducing another adult into their lives could be confusing. However, feedback from young people suggests that having someone who is not a paid employee of the LA would give them a degree of independence.

There was great support from young people for peer advocacy and the use of language like `friend', `mentor' or buddy, depending on age and ability.

Disability teams expressed a real commitment to independent advocacy, saying that it could be particularly appropriate for those children with communication problems. Their views can sometimes not be taken into full consideration. An independent advocate could be a vehicle to ensure that their views are fully represented.

In any event, the role of an advocate needs to be considered alongside that of IROs.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

A tiered approach ought to be a core part of a wider commissioning strategy.

A greater emphasis is needed on matching needs to placement.

In a tiered approach, there could be an emphasis on fostering provision for children with complex needs. For example, children with drug and alcohol problems could receive family based support, rather than accessing tier 4 residential detox and rehabilitation services.

X

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

Whilst supporting this framework, some individual concerns were expressed with regards to a number of carers who might miss out because of not being able to meet the qualifications and requirements. However, it should be noted that, in Hampshire, foster carers have access to NVQ 3 qualifications if they are Level 3 carers. This is valued by the carers, who particularly enjoy training alongside residential workers.

A large proportion of feedback supported the idea that an increased understanding of child development, education and behaviour would enable carers to help improve the outcomes for the children they look after and improve the placement stability.

Comments:

Achieving improved choice of care placement in the short-medium term could be difficult without significant additional resource levels and robust regional contracting. This target could be achieved through a reduction of the care population and a re-investment in sustained services for children and families on the edge of care and robust systems for carers' support.

All this should be underpinned by a robust commissioning strategy.

Yes

No

x

Not Sure

Comments:

There was a mixed response from stakeholders. While it can be beneficial for some disabled children to have the protection of `looked after' status, there were also concerns expressed that children did not need to be `looked after' if they had long-term support from their parents. There may be a need for some flexibility around these arrangements as part of the planning process.

One young person who had this status has said that it was helpful to have statutory reviews and to be able to access support when required.

Comments:

This needs to be rewarded through the Teaching and Learning Responsibility payment system, so that they have the status and time to dedicate to this.

It was also identified that

a) A clearer accountability and role profile for teachers fulfilling this role should be established

b) The schools OFSTED inspection framework should require schools to demonstrate a greater accountability for children in care. This may include such aspects as how actively is the progress of children in care monitored, both in relation to academic attainment and emotional well-being. It was emphasised that the "value added" component was critical and the individual support to the child should be the point of monitoring rather than statistical targets for a group where schools have such small numbers.

The importance of School Improvement Partners challenging schools on their performance with children in care was emphasised.

Comments:

There was some disagreement and confusion over the concept of the virtual headteacher.

Other stakeholders felt that the virtual headteacher could take a lead role in supporting colleagues to maintain educational placements.

He/she could act as a trainer and support link with SIPs in schools' inspection services to ensure that the responsibilities of schools are clearly understood and that SIPs are able to support and challenge appropriately.

There was some concern that moves in Years 10 and 11 could be for positive educational reasons so that an outright prohibition may be inappropriate.

Comments:

There needs to be a more robust training process in place to enable carers to:

a) Establish better links with schools and the designated teacher.

b) Have a greater understanding of FE & HE, with formalised links with local universities, to provide taster days for carers and raise their aspirations.

c) Meet minimum standards as part of their core training.

X

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

It is surprising that so mandatory training for the principals of FE colleges is singled out. The balance needs to be shifted to ensure that more is required from all those who may be involved in the education of children in care.

Guidance should be given around the LA's responsibilities to develop partnerships with local businesses, to provide work opportunities for care leavers. The development of apprenticeship schemes with key partners could provide a rich source of opportunities for young people.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

This provides a helpful framework for health services. It was felt important to have more holistic health assessments, looking at mental health, sexual health and substance misuse.

The toolkit is only helpful if people feel equipped to use it and it should be part of a wider support structure.

It is encouraging to see that the needs of young mothers are mentioned, but it is important to recognise that young fathers have needs too. We need to promote the children's having a father too, as this in turn may influence involvement with the partner and child, as well as the emotional well-being of the young man.

We need to be careful with the word `screening', since it could be interpreted as testing for drugs or STIs. It needs to be clear that it is about identifying needs via asking appropriate targeted questions, either as a stand alone tool or as part of existing assessment processes - eg CAF, ASSET. Young people do not wish to be stigmatised; being "screened" for substance misuse just because they are in care.

Comments:

For two-tier authorities, close partnership with district councils is essential in accessing sporting and leisure activities. The mechanism for achieving this is through the LAA.

Young people have fed back that this is a crucial part of their well-being and would like at least 3 hours per week.

In consultation with the parents of disabled children, sports, recreation and leisure was seen as a key priority for their children. There were complaints that access to these services are often restricted to specific times during the week.

Reviewing children's involvement in these activities should be part of social work supervision and Reviews.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

There was overwhelming support for this, but implementing would have major impacts on the LA's budget.

Comments:

We support the intention to include managing behaviour into the framework of training and qualifications, but evidence indicates that such training is insufficient to embed skills for carers. Any such training needs to be sustained through ongoing supervision and support, perhaps through regular facilitated meetings with practitioners both experienced in managing behaviour and facilitating change and empowering carers.

Clearly such training needs to be interwoven with work on rights and responsibilities (of carers, parents and children). We think there may be lessons to be drawn from the Rights, Respect and Responsibilities programme in some of our schools.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

In consultation events with children in and leaving care, every young person was in favour of being given the opportunity to remain with their carers until 21. Practitioners also supported this idea, but were aware that this could create problems with choice of care placements for younger children.

Comments:

It is important to develop a wider range of housing provision. Below are some suggestions around how this could be achieved.

Each LA should have agreed housing strategies for care leavers, young people with disabilities, teenage parents and other vulnerable groups. Each CSD should have a lead officer for young people's housing, who sits on the relevant strategic groups to `champion' the needs of vulnerable young people.

Positive partnerships should also be developed between the CSD and the Supporting People team.

Apart from in exceptional circumstances, all care leavers should be put on the housing register at the age of 16 and prioritised by the housing department (in two-tier authorities, this would need liaison and partnership working between the LA and district councils).

Arrangements should also be made for 16 and 17 year olds to be granted tenancies, with floating support services.

Comments:

The first step for this is achieving at school.

LAs need to have higher aspirations for their children in care and have year-on-year improvements on numbers accessing HE.

Compact agreements need to be in place between LAs and local universities, including taster days and university weeks.

LAs should work with Aim Higher to ensure positive targeting in their schemes.

In line with the Widening Participation Agenda, peer mentoring schemes could be developed to raise care leavers' aspirations and provide them with a role model.

Care leavers teams should have enough capacity to give practical support to young people at university.

All young people should have a financial plan, which ensures they have sufficient support from their corporate parents, including accommodation during vacations.

Concerns were expressed around the financial implications.

x

Yes

No

Not Sure

Comments:

Stakeholders agreed with this, but highlighted the need to address why some schools have more children in care than others.

Comments:

At an individual level, it is important that children participate meaningfully in statutory reviews. This should become a greater element in social work training.

Overwhelmingly, stakeholders were in favour of a care council, but this needs to be a group of young people who work actively with councillors and managers to improve services.

Comments:

We received no feedback from within the authority which suggested that the Independent Reviewing Service should be situated outside of the authority. Such an approach could be counter-productive, since an IRS would have little say in what happens within the organisation until after it happens. It could become remote and seen as a form of a long arm inspection unit.

Although IROs are employees of CSD, they have, in Hampshire, been robust in challenging the Department in relation to care plans and are located outside of the operational arm of the Directorate.

The role of IROs goes beyond just chairing reviews - through their daily contacts and formal contact meetings, they play a significant role in the shaping of services. Such contact does not compromise independence.

Furthermore, their direct access to workers, children and children's files is a huge advantage. There will be a whole issue about how IROs can monitor and audit progress if they were placed outside the LA. The behaviour and practice of IROs themselves needs to be monitored, and this can be done more easily within the authority.

There would also be concerns around the separation of CPCs and CLA reviewing if the Reviewing Service. The current system allows IROs to maintain understanding of both areas, which is definitely an advantage.

The work in the green paper about care planning is welcomed, since it will require LAs to set out the care plan in a much clearer format. In particular, the work around the Court Care Plan and the requirement that the views of the IROs will have to be included prior to submission to the Final Hearing will be a big improvement and re-enforce the position of IROs in reviewing care plans.

Frankly we are not sure if there is adequate understanding of the nature of this role.

Comments:

We would expect social workers to evaluate the outcomes of children on an individual basis, since it was felt that collective performance indicators do not always give the full picture.

A number of children come into care during their teenage years, when they are already significantly behind academically. It would be better to look at how well children have progressed since entering care, rather than just comparing them with their peers.

Comments:

Overall very positive - it is encouraging to see further recognition on the voice of the child

There are concerns though around the financial implications on already stretched budgets and the absence of schools as being part of the corporate parent.

Comments:

None

X Yes

No