CYP(3) PCC 05
Children and Young People Committee
Inquiry into: The Placement of Children into Care
Response from : Jessica Jones Cardiff Foster Care Co-operative
The Foster Care Cooperative (FCC) was established 10years ago. Its purpose is to recruit, assess, train and approve Foster Carers in Wales and England who are then made available to Local Authorities for the placement of children.
The Agency has a clear focus on being ethical in approach, a commitment to grow organically and a powerful belief in providing the best for Looked After children.
The Foster Care Cooperative “brand” appears to be gaining momentum as Local Authorities and others recognise the quality of care provided and the positive ethos of the Agency. Carers are attracted to the Agency on the basis of it being a not-for-distributed- profit organisation, and the special values and principles that are inherent in such a culture. Any surplus of monies, in line with the “not for profit” ethos, are ploughed back into the Agency and used to address training and development for staff and foster carers, a future fund to support Young People leaving FCC Care, and other developmental opportunities. The particular model of Co-operative organisation cannot be sold but only given away to another social enterprise organisation, and, as such, any motivation for growth in personal wealth is actively discriminated against and indeed would not survive in this co-operative culture. We believe these values assist vulnerable children in maximising their opportunities to make good life choices, and, ultimately, promote the chances of a good outcome and a more stable life.
In determining whether and where to place a child into care, a social worker will need an accurate picture of a child’s needs and circumstances, which may require them to have information from a range of local services- health services, social services, etc. who may also have to consider their responsibilities towards confidentiality. To what extent is information about a child’s needs effectively shared with decision makers, and do you have any examples of good practice in such inter-agency communications? Is there a clear understanding of who is ultimately accountable for decisions about a child’s care?
Availability of key information in respect of a referred child is somewhat variable- both between Local Authorities, but also between different case accountable social workers. There is clear evidence that good planning enables better practice as it enables a more informed matching process to take place. Emergencies by their very nature often leave the information gathering process more compromised.
An example of good practice emanated from a Parent and Child placement that was commissioned by Ceredigion County Council. The referral was received with adequate time for the relevant meetings to take place between professionals, service users and foster carers and, importantly, introductions were facilitated. All parties were aware of the expectations – and the consequences of failure to adhere to the plan. Time scales were discussed and reviews of the plan arranged, with the opportunity to alter the plan accordingly if so indicated. The placement was successful in that it ran for the proposed duration and an informed decision was possible as to where the future needs of the child would best be met. The plan was the subject of a Written Agreement that was signed by all parties.
There was a clear understanding of delegated and ultimate responsibilities.
There appears to be a level of tension in existence in terms of the function of the CSSR data base. From the perspective of an Independent Provider (IP), the data base appears to be used by the Local Authority as a matching tool when its function is one of a search engine to facilitate the gathering of basic information that may lead to the identification of a suitable placement.
This Agency would suggest that dialogue between potential providers of the placement and the LA should take place at a much earlier juncture- very often the IP is actively prevented from having any discussion with the LA until after the IP is selected as the placement provider of choice. Any discussion that does take place is with the LA Placement team – who do not know the child and are in fact acting as a “broker”. Often communication is written in the form of email which further inhibits the ability to gain a good understanding of the needs of the Child/Young Person. It is not possible to adequately capture the variables of a child’s needs without this discussion and this actively hinders the matching process. It should be said that not all LAs are as rigid in this process – those that are more flexible contribute to a better and more rounded matching process.
The tendering process that was piloted by Cardiff and is now used by RCT and Merthyr Tydfil Councils does not contribute positively to the placement process, especially as it exists in isolation of any dialogue with the Social Worker who is referring the child. Subsidiary questions about gaps in the assessment have to be submitted in email form – the answers to which are then sent back to the IFP as the same - and through the conduit of the placement team - who do not know the child. The quality of the information in the tendering form is also very variable – sometime adequate, but more often poor, with key information points about the child missed out- e.g. the school attended, arrangements for contact
There is also no feed back in the event of an unsuccessful tender - the IFP is rarely informed of reasons why the proposed placement was rejected.
In terms of quality of planning, placements range in description- from “chaotic and ad hoc, to where there is evidence of careful matching.” Children often have a “status” attached to them – e.g. long term, short term etc. In the case of short term placements, it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what the anticipated outcome will be as there is often court or child protection proceedings- or both- running concurrently, the outcomes of which have yet to be established. This agency has examples of children remaining “short term” in spite of the resolution of court proceedings and a decision for long term care. The delay appears to be linked to the system of referral to the appropriate LA panel for this status to be altered. The Independent Reviewing Officer is made aware of such events in the childs LAC Review.
The risks involved in accepting a looked after child into their home are explained to foster carers in their entirety - a full risk assessment is undertaken by social work staff of this agency at the point of placement. Of course, the accuracy of such an assessment is dependant on the information imparted by the LA.
This risk assessment is updated on a regular basis
Carers are able to refuse a placement if they feel the risks to themselves or birth children are too great. The Agency has a policy of very careful matching and therefore an entirely unsuitable match would no t even be discussed with any potential carers
The extent to which Children and Young People participate in their own placement is a question that can best be answered by the LA as it directly reflects on the effectiveness of their procedures for ascertaining the wishes and feelings of the child. This agency has certainly had experiences of children and young people who have been placed and then absconded as they have no wish to either be accommodated or are, in their view, accommodated in an area that they do not want to live.
The continuity of key workers is again variable. Some LA’s appear to sustain and retain social work staff and others manage this less effectively. Therefore some children have a series of workers and others benefit from consistency. I would suggest that foster carers are not in the main given sufficient autonomy and there is still unacceptable delay in obtaining permissions for such things as school trips / out of school activities / passport applications, etc. As highlighted in the reading of “Amy’s Diary” at the Senydd to highlight Fostering Fortnight, this is one of the aspects of being “Looked After” that most affects accommodated children.
All placements are reviewed under the Looked After Child Reviewing arrangements. I am not aware of any Cost benefit analysis that has been completed by a Local Authority that has asked for input from us as a provider. This of course does not assume that any “in- house” analysis would not have been completed.
The data base, if its use is to be continued, should be used by all LAs and the systems and processes should be open and transparent. The function of the data base should be overt and it should not be used to short circuit existing protocols and processes There is a degree of suspicion that the LA have the facility to enter data that is “hidden” from IFPs. This may or may not be the case but the fact that such thoughts exist, suggest a culture of mistrust that cannot be conducive to promoting good working relationships in the interests of children.
The Foster Care Co-operative is a member of Fostering Through Social Enterprise (FtSE) which has been formed to lobby for Social Enterprise in the Foster Care Sector. This particular mission is gathering momentum and it is the wish of FtSE members that a Scottish model of “Voluntary Sector” only is adopted in England and Wales. Whilst the standards in the “for profit” sector are high, the scale of potential profit by owners, shareholders and, most recently, Venture Capitalists are huge, and do not sit comfortably with the needs of vulnerable children and other needy groups. Revenue withdrawal through profit and/or outright sale represents a loss of funding from the Foster Care Sector with all the attendant implications.
