Examination of Witnesses (Questions 448-459)
CLLR LES
LAWRENCE, CAROLINE
ABRAHAMS, MARION
DAVIS, STEVE
GOODMAN AND
PAULINE NEWMAN
27 OCTOBER 2008
Q448 Chairman: I welcome Councillor
Les Lawrence, Caroline Abrahams, Marion Davis, Steve Goodman and
Pauline Newman. Although these sittings are formal and on the
record, we try to handle them relatively informally, and we use
first names unless people object. We are coming to the end of
the inquiry. After the ministerial meeting next Wednesday, we
will enjoy the process of writing up our notes on the inquiry,
which has been quite long. This sitting is very important for
us. We want to ask all sorts of questions that have been prompted
by visits to Denmark and to other places around the country. I
know that Councillor Les Lawrence has to leave after about half
an hour, so some of the questions will be directed at him in the
first instance. I will give a couple of minutes to Councillor
Lawrence to say where he thinks we are with regard to looked-after
children and what he sees as the main challenges. I will keep
him to two or three minutes.
Les Lawrence: Thank you very much,
Chairman. We are dealing with one of the most vulnerable groups
of young people Although a number of challenges face us, there
have also been a number of improvements. One of the major improvements
is that local authority services are moving towards a more preventive
and early intervention arrangement to try to stop the number of
children who are coming into care. Secondly, a lot more emphasis
is placed on taking children into care on a temporary basis so
that they can return to their families when assistance and support
have been provided. Another area in which we have seen quite a
lot of improvement is the extent to which those children who are
in care are becoming much more actively engaged and involved in
what happens to them—how they are to be supported and assisted.
Moreover, another challenge, which, hopefully, will be helped
by the legislation that is beginning to wend its way through the
House, is the whole issue of transition, especially at 16. As
you know, much of the support that is available up to that age
ceases. A number of foster carers are taking on the responsibility
without support and continuing to look after young people. Local
authorities are looking at how independent living can be supported
and how youngsters can move into employment training, education
or a combination of the two. Of course, at the moment, resources
for that are becoming tighter. Another challenging issue is commissioning.
How do you evaluate, monitor and set the quality? Rather than
targets, the emphasis is now shifting to outcomes, and we now
ask what beneficial outcome is being achieved through the commissioning
process. In general, local authorities are beginning to turn the
curve. It is not happening as fast as many would like but, in
this instance, progress is being made with a much greater degree
of clarity and care, so the benefits that are accruing can be
seen by those who are being assisted. The final aspect is the
extent to which we have not, as local authorities, addressed the
role of all elected members, in all local authorities, in the
concept of corporate parenting. That applies not only to metropolitan
areas, but to the shire counties—I do not think that district
councils fully understand their role in that arena, and they have
some responsibilities under the "positive activities"
heading. That message has not got across. The Local Government
Association has done a lot of work with the Improvement and Development
Agency in putting together a series of documents, and it is initiating
training to ensure that lead members are fully cognisant of their
role not only in the generality of corporate parenting, but in
the legislative framework within which they are working.
Q449 Chairman: Councillor Lawrence—I
will give the others a chance to get their two minutes in—may
I ask you, if you are looking at the general trends from an LGA
rather than a Birmingham perspective, whether this worries you?
Hackney has looked at the number of children going into care and
reduced it through a range of policies. You can contrast that
to another of your members, Manchester, which has, as far as we
can tell, the highest number of children in care of almost any
other authority in the country. Does that make you uncomfortable?
What is your take on the contrast between Hackney and Manchester?
Les Lawrence: I would not wish
to comment directly on Manchester or Hackney, because that would
be inappropriate.
Q450 Chairman: I was using them
as examples. One has a very high level, almost like Denmark, which
we visited. Denmark takes twice as many children into care as
we do. Does that mean that the Danish are doing the job better,
or that they are not doing it so well? You might say, "Oh,
that's because it's Denmark," but Denmark has twice as many
as both Sweden and Norway, so the situation is more complex. Is
it better to take fewer children into care?
Les Lawrence: At the end of the
day, the ultimate aim should be to ensure that as many children
and young people remain within a family construct as possible.
The move towards much earlier intervention and preventive frameworks,
such that you can identify families that are getting into difficulty,
is the right way to go. However, the bottom line must always be
that, if a position arises where it is essential that a child
be taken into care, that should happen—it may well be that
you do that on a temporary basis to assist the family with supportive
services and early intervention. At the end of the day, if it
is absolutely necessary to take a child into care, that child
should indeed be taken into care.
Q451 Chairman: But should children
be taken into care on the cheap? Only about 13% of children go
into institutional care in England; 71% go into foster care in
this country. In Denmark, it is about 50:50. Is foster care a
cheap alternative?
Les Lawrence: No, foster carers
are not a cheap alternative. They are a very effective alternative
and they should be remunerated at a level that enables them to
fulfil all that would be expected of a normal family situation.
Equally, local authorities should do their utmost to create residential
environments that equate, as closely as it is possible to achieve,
to a family environment. Many local authorities are now moving
away from what I call the traditional institutional-type environment
into three or four-bed homes where youngsters can begin to feel
that it is much more of a family environment, but that requires
a number of other characteristics. It needs us to raise the esteem
and skill levels of the staff in those residential facilities,
such that they are not seen, as they often are, as the lowest
order in the social care arena and that they are trained in a
way that makes them much more able to relate with the young people,
so that they are seen almost like parents. However, that does
not come cheap either, and it will take time to evolve. We also
have to recognise that foster carers tend not to take children
much beyond the age of eight, simply because often children in
the older age group have become much more challenged and have
many more difficulties. Therefore, we need to find a way in which
we can encourage foster carers to take older children and give
those children the same degree of family environment as the younger
ones. You need supportive services to enable that to happen.
Q452 Chairman: Marion Davis would
sort of dissent from that point, so I will bring her in.
Marion Davis: In Warwickshire,
the vast majority of our children—about 93%—are placed
in family placements. We invested heavily in foster care in the
county, stemming from a decision over 20 years ago to close all
our in-house residential care. Over that period, there has been
a huge investment, not just in terms of the allowances that we
pay, although those are important, but in the training, development
and support that we offer to our foster carers. We were sheltered
from some of the experiences of some authorities that have lost
foster carers to the independent fostering agencies, which by
and large pay significantly more and cost local authorities a
lot more to place children. We would use foster care as our placement
of choice for the whole age range, certainly not predominantly
for the under-eights.
Chairman: You will excuse us, but this
process is difficult for the Committee. Normally, each member
of the Committee has a section of questions that they supervise,
but because of Councillor Lawrence not being here very long, we
are breaking the mould. David Chaytor.
Q453 Mr Chaytor: Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to pick up on the points that Councillor Lawrence
made about the role of the local authority as the corporate parent
and particularly the position of the non-executive members of
the authority. What more could be done to make non-executive members
more aware of their responsibilities as the corporate parent?
Les Lawrence: There are two or
three things. The first is that those members who are involved
in scrutiny can look at the whole process of corporate parenting.
Secondly, all elected members should have, as part of their induction
training and ongoing training, a session on corporate parenting
so that they fully understand their individual role. In addition,
there should be much more encouragement of all elected members
to be involved on an individual basis with the section 33 visits
to homes, especially those homes that are in their wards or in
the constituency area around their wards. They should also be
encouraged to be much more engaged with the young people themselves.
Many councils have created children in care councils and corporate
pledges, and that means that the young people themselves have
been much more engaged in developing and playing a role in those
bodies. One other way that youngsters themselves can be engaged
with elected members is to have named councillors with groups
of young people, which I know one or two authorities have developed
as well. That is why I said earlier that district councils, which
do not have a direct role in children's services within shire
counties but have direct involvement in the provision of activities
where youngsters can fulfil the positive activity role, also need
to understand and be involved in the concept of corporate parenting.
It needs to be a mandatory element of training. It is not something
that is just a one-off. It has to be something that is done on
a returning basis, if you like, under the concept of professional
development—I use the word "professional" loosely
in regard to elected members, yourselves excluded.
Q454 Mr Chaytor: In respect of
the structural changes that most local authorities have taken
on board in recent years, such as the move to children's trusts
and children's services departments, are there specific improvements
in Birmingham, for example, that you could attribute to the more
integrated approach to children's services that now applies in
most local authorities?
Les Lawrence: Yes. I think that
the children's trust arrangements have enabled services around
children in care or looked-after children much sooner than would
perhaps have been the case if they had not been there. I am thinking
of the relationship with the health service to provide health
provision and the development around the child and adolescent
mental health service, which is much more involved in assisting
lots of young people. Yes, it is evolving. I also think that there
is a greater understanding about the commissioning role, simply
because there is now much closer working together not only in
terms of children's services but in terms of adults and communities.
Lots of local authorities, my own included, have appointed officers
specifically responsible for transition not only in terms of children
in care but for the generality of children, although children
in care specifically are an aspect of their role. That kind of
evolutionary approach is beneficial. There is one other aspect
that I would like to mention. Perhaps if the Department set a
floor target in terms of service expectations, all local authorities
would at least have a benchmark below which they knew they could
not go.
Q455 Mr Chaytor: Leaving aside
the question of multi-agency working within local authorities,
certain areas still seem to be consistently weak across local
authorities. The evidence that we have received points to the
question of people leaving care, and the inadequacy of arrangements
and advice on further training, education and employment as well
as housing once they leave care. Can you say, hand on heart, that
you think that the establishment of children's trusts has strengthened
the provision of advice and appropriate housing for care leavers?
Les Lawrence: It is coming. The
issue of advice and guidance is becoming more strengthened now
that Connexions has become embedded within the local authority.
For those local authorities that still have a housing function,
the ability to set aside properties to enable youngsters in care
to live independently is much easier to facilitate, although some
local authorities have been able to enter into agreements with
registered social landlords. However, I must say that anecdotally,
comments have come back that there is a reluctance on behalf of
externally located housing providers to take children in care
because there is some kind of stigma attached to having been in
care, which I think is unfortunate. However, it is beginning to
happen. I think the full extent of the issue is that, because
all elected members have not owned it, it has not been fully understood,
to the extent that it should, among the elected fraternity. Officers,
I think, have fully understood it, but now that it is coming much
more into the role of lead members it will begin to become an
issue that is of high focus—linked, of course, to the whole
safeguarding issue and an understanding of that interrelationship
as well.
Chairman: Douglas, Edward—do you
have a question for Councillor Lawrence?
Mr Carswell: I want to talk more about
variation in local authorities.
Q456 Mr Timpson: Can I pick up
on the role of the corporate parent, but from the point of view
of the child in care. The concept of a corporate parent, to a
child in care, is frankly probably fairly meaningless. When they
understand what their care plan is—although I think from
the statistics I have seen that a third of children in care do
not even know what their care plan is, which is worrying in itself—what
they are interested in is that they may want to challenge the
care plan. They may be concerned about the change of school that
is being put forward, or a change of placement at a time when
they are not ready for it. With respect to the channels they can
go through with the local authority to try to make their voice
heard, have we done enough to try to make sure that children in
care have the ability to challenge what is happening to them,
or is there more that we could be doing?
Les Lawrence: The simple answer
is not yet. There is still a lot more to be done. The concept
of the designated adult, as I call it, where the child has a person
they can always turn to, is one that is still being developed.
Equally, the whole development of children in care councils, and
the appropriate pledges, is still in its infancy, although it
is beginning to allow youngsters to have a voice and a role to
ensure that they themselves are not only being heard but are being
listened to. I think that there is a long way to go. At the end
of the day it is about getting the message across to elected members
as well so that they can consistently challenge on behalf of the
young people—about whether they are receiving the same degree
of support and service that would be expected in all sorts of
other environments. So yes, you are right—the phrase "corporate
parent" is synonymous with the sort of high-flown language
that they would not necessarily understand; but it is about what
kind of relationships are there on the ground, and the conduits
through which they can actually engage and make their own feelings
and their own desires known—it is happening but we still
have a long way to go.
Q457 Mr Timpson: And does that
extend to the role of the independent reviewing officer and concerns
that have been expressed that the officers are not independent
enough to be a channel for children to use to make their feelings
heard?
Les Lawrence: I think local authorities
are doing their utmost to ensure that the word "independent"
means what it says, even though they are within, if you like,
the local government family; because at the end of the day you
need to have a view that challenges—questions—what
is being done, not only in terms of the officers but the elected
members as well. Again, I think it is a developing role, because
sometimes the degree of challenge is not always readily accepted;
but it has to be understood that that challenge is essential if
the process, the system and the outcomes are to be achieved for
those who are the focus of all this—the children themselves.
Chairman: I think we have now given Councillor
Lawrence a chance to show that he is here, and he has had some
questions directed at him. John wanted him to be the lead respondent
on his section of questions, so John, do you want to get started?
Q458 Mr Heppell: Everyone else
can answer as well. First, back to corporate parenting. I have
a slight worry about the way we are describing it—the idea
that councillors at district level, as well, are getting involved
in the whole process—because I worry about the corporate
parent already not being prepared to take risks. There were foster
parents who said to us, "The corporate parent is over-prescriptive";
they look at guidance and think "Oh, we'd better go on the
safe side of this, to be certain." There is not enough delegation
to foster parents because people are worried about whether the
right decisions would be made. It is no good sticking councillors
in, because they are elected members; I have been on a council
myself, and the last thing they want is a scandal, child abuse,
a child death or something like that. Is there not a worry that
the corporate parent will become even more cautious as elected
members get more involved?
Les Lawrence: As they understand
the nature of the role, I believe that they will be less risk-averse.
If they do not understand, the very nature of the concern and
the high profile of some cases will lead them to be risk-averse.
However, if they understand the various component parts of the
overall role—they are the guardians at the end of the day
and not the prescribers or descriptors of what should happen to
each and every child—they will know that a care plan is
in place, that the right relationships are in place, that the
young person is in a school where that youngster's potential is
likely to be fulfilled, and that the foster caring arrangements
are suitable for that child. In that case, the overall responsibility
for the corporate parent is fulfilled, and a watching brief can
take place. Yes, I agree that if you expected the elected member
to be at the chalk face, providing oversight on every action and
every activity, it would be a total misuse of the elected member's
role. The non-executive back-bench member, as well as the lead
member, should be providing that oversight and protection to ensure
that the system is working for the person at the centre—the
child in care. We must not forget that elected members are heavily
involved in adoption and fostering panels. That is a distinct
and responsible position in itself, and it facilitates the right
environment to ensure that the children and young people are placed
in the most appropriate arrangements for their needs.
Q459 Chairman: John, before you
follow that up, I know that Pauline Newman wants to come in, and
as your section is on improving the quality of children's care,
I think we should now give everyone the chance to have their two
minutes. Shall we riff through them? Pauline, you wanted to come
in, but will you also tell us a little about what you believe
is the present situation in the quality of children in care?
Pauline Newman: In Manchester,
we have high numbers of looked-after children. The number is coming
down, but our goal has been to focus slightly on the Denmark situation.
In the context of circumstances in Manchester, our goal has to
be to see to it that the numbers come down safely. We are trying
to get to a position where we are absolutely clear that a child
comes into looked-after status only when necessary and only if
they are likely to benefit from that status. Figures can mirror
quite a lot of difference. We in Manchester should not really
have this, and we are working on not having it, but some looked-after
children are at home, because orders have been made that we did
not really want. We wanted supervision, and we have ended up with
something else, but we are reducing those numbers through the
mechanisms. However, quite a lot of young people are placed with
relatives and friends as carers. Yes, there is oversight, and
increasingly we are trying to make them come under special guardianship
or other provisions. Manchester is a place that, despite its regeneration,
has a high level of deprivation and some persistent issues that
impact on children. It is the case that some of our elected members
are worried that we do not admit enough children to looked-after
status, so we as officers have a significant job to do, which
is about developing our early intervention and prevention, and
making our placements as cost-effective as we can, and not poor-relation
placements, so that we can move money into early intervention
and prevention. Our search for additional preventative mechanisms
has led us to focus heavily on parenting—working with parents
in quite structured ways—and also on emotional resilience
training for children and young people; I heartily object to them
being called happiness lessons, but it is a clear programme and
our youngsters and the schools are now saying that it is benefiting
them, without a shadow of doubt. We are managing to steer our
spend more towards keeping youngsters out of looked-after status,
but we need to remember that reducing the numbers of looked-after
children is also about increasing new adoptions and other ways
of having families support them. We are about all those things,
but we are keeping a close eye on safety. While we have reduced
the numbers of children with looked-after status, our numbers
on protection plans have increased. What we are doing is maintaining
children just below the level of looked-after status, and we have
to be very careful about that.
Chairman: Thank you. Steve Goodman.
Steve Goodman: I was going to
say something about "Reclaiming Social Work", a change
programme we have been leading in Hackney for the past two years.
We believe that social work with families and young people is
a complex task, more akin to other professions such as psychiatry
and law. Hence, practitioners need high intellectual ability,
good people skills and a tool box of interventions if they are
going to practise it well. In this country, we are a long way
off that. The situation has probably got worse rather than better
over the past couple of decades. Training courses are not fit
for purpose. There is a strong emphasis on training courses on
values but they teach little about methodology. Those entering
social work training are often lacking the basic ability to do
such a complex job well. Recognising that, the Department for
Children, Schools and Families and its predecessors and local
authorities have introduced more and more layers of bureaucracy
around children's social care in an attempt to compensate. The
system has become risk averse and it strangles good social work
practice.
|
