Skip to content

Agenda item

Children's Services Quarter 2 2021/22 Performance Report

Minutes:

In the discussion the following main points were made:

 

·         A member asked for clarification on Corporate Indicator targets remaining the same or lower. An officer stated that 2019/20 was a marked year for the Youth Offending Service. There were seven custodial sentences when in 2018/19 there had been 19 and previous to that the number of custodial sentences had been in the mid-20s. The service was pleased with there being only seven custodial sentences but did not predict a plateau and therefore did not reduce the target. As work to wrap around young people and divert them had been successful, it now meant that consideration could be given to reducing the target number. However it was also important that the target was realistic as one incident could lead to four or five custodial sentences.

·         A member asked whether as triage had been successful, there were any plans to scale this up. An officer replied that the criteria was set by legislation. However those who were subject to an out of court disposal were also offered triage. Officers would report back on the numbers.

·         Consideration would be given to the Domestic violence indicators. The percentage of repeat domestic violence could be more useful than the number of offences as it was hard to see whether an increase or decrease was positive.  The rise in the number could show increased reporting which was positive. It was suggested that consideration should also be given as to whether this indicator should be reported to Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee or another committee. A member suggested that it should continue to be reported to the committee as children witnessed violence and were involved in county lines.

·         In response to a member’s question about whether peer on peer abuse was captured in the domestic violence figures, an officer advised that Social Care collected peer on peer abuse data.

·         A member asked about contact with those being electively home educated. An officer advised that they were visited once a year, unless through a risk assessment it was deemed there was a risk. Where this was the case, there was contact with families more than once a year, although this was dependent on the co-operation of families. If they did not co-operate this meant there was additional risk. The council continued to lobby that vulnerable children should not be permitted to be home educated.

·         Children who were the most at risk were those who had never been to school. There was no legislation requiring families to notify the local authority. There were other mechanisms to find out about these children e.g. through GP records but if they moved into the borough finding out about them was more difficult. Also, there was no requirement for families to register with a GP. The council did get data of live births and contacted parents when their children were at statutory school age but some parents did not engage. If families claimed benefits, the council would know of the existence of their children.

·         Work took place with health colleagues to have home education flagged on GP records so GPs could offer face-to-face appointments etc. where risk was identified.

·         Some families made the choice to home educate and these choices were not always for negative reasons.

·         Home education was not a risk in itself but triangulation was used to identify patterns e.g. if the child being home educated had been persistently absent from school or excluded and there was concern that parents were being encouraged to home educate their child.

·         In relation to persistent absence from school, the service was working with 7 out of the 10 secondary schools in the borough (there were no concerns about the persistence absence level in the other three schools). Covid had been a factor in persistent absence. There was a need to find different solutions for different children. Unlike some other boroughs, Islington asked schools not to take children off roll until they were sure where a child would be going for safeguarding reasons. This affected figures. There had been a 7% improvement in persistent absence in Islington primary schools.

·         In response to a question from a member of the public about whether the £5,000 budget schools received per child would be lost for each child being home educated, officers confirmed this was the case.

RESOLVED:

1) That the report be noted.

2) That officers report back on the numbers of young people who were subject to an out of court disposal and were offered triage.

Supporting documents: