Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which provided an overview of the 16+ accommodation and support provided by external framework to Looked After Children aged 16 and 17 years of age.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following comments were raised:

i)                It was reported that there were 24 Providers on the 16+ Supported Accommodation Framework and there were 96 young people living in 16+ semi-independent accommodation.  Concern was raised by a member that these young people did not receive enough supervision, particularly those who placed outside of Leicestershire.  It was reported that for some 16 year olds, professionals had concerns about them living in semi-independent accommodation, in particular those who had lived in residential accommodation and had been victims of sexual and criminal exploitation.  However, where this was the case, robust arrangements were in place to ensure that officers knew the whereabouts of these young people and this could include initially commissioning 24/7 support during their transition period.  Where there were significant issues, the young person would revert to receiving care, not support.

ii)               A range of mechanisms were in place to ensure that young people were kept away from forms of exploitation.  The department worked closely with the Home Office in relation to trafficking and modern slavery and there was a protocol in place around how to deal with this.  It was stated that East Midlands Airport had also developed a protocol around placing trafficked children and working with relevant authorities.

iii)             Of those living in semi-independent accommodation, 43 were unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC); 62% of these were placed out of county, with a significant number residing in Leicester City.  It was possible to monitor this cohort closely due to the small number and to ensure that they had an appropriate pathway plan.  It was noted that UASC were likely to be slightly older and quite often, their status was not resolved by the age of 18.  It was therefore not possible for them to move to housing provision until they had a right to remain in the UK as the County Council was responsible for their finances.  All UASC were allocated a Personal Advisor, who would work with the young person to develop an appropriate pathway plan to help them with their individual needs and to integrate into the community. 

iv)             It was noted that there were national standards around managing children who were placed out of county.  The young person remained the responsibility of the home authority who would determine their day to day care and how frequently they were visited by their social worker, based on the needs of the individual young person.  If anything critical occurred and there needed to be an investigation, the local authority where the young person was placed would co-ordinate this until the local authority responsible for the young person could deal with it.  It was stated that there were approximately 600 young people living in Leicestershire from out of the county; this number was monitored along with the number of beds from external providers.  There was also a duty on local placing authorities to write to host authorities to inform them when a young person was residing in their area.

v)              A query was raised in relation to fully understanding the vulnerability of UASC to exploitation.  It was stated that all young people had an individual initial assessment to determine their needs and vulnerabilities.  For UASC, it could be that little was known to begin with but multi-agency assessments carried out by a variety of organisations ensured that they received appropriate support.  Initially, their educational needs were arranged by the Virtual School.  There was clear guidance from the Home Office for staff to check that a UASC was the age they were claiming to be; this stated that a five year confidence margin had to be considered when determining their age.

vi)             Costs per week for semi-independent accommodation ranged and one young person was in a Care Quality Commission provision costing £5,625 per week, the cost of which was shared with health.  In response to a query, it was reported that there was a clear criteria to follow when health was contributing.  The Complex Care Panel would determine the level of contribution and this was largely based on the child’s needs.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.