• Calendar
  • Committees
  • Community Councils
  • Consultations
  • Decisions
  • Election results
  • ePetitions
  • Forthcoming Decisions
  • Forward Plans
  • Library
  • Meetings
  • Outside bodies
  • Search documents
  • Subscribe to updates
  • Your councillors
  • Your MPs
  • Your MEPs
  • What's new
  • Agenda item

    16+ TEAM (LEAVING CARE)

    • Meeting of Care Scrutiny Committee, Thursday, 29th January, 2026 10.30 am (Item 7.)

    Assurance in relation to the 16 plus provision.  

    Decision:

     

    1.    To accept and note the report.

     

    Minutes:

    The report was presented by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families. It was noted that the Post 16 Team had been set up as a dedicated team to focus on the cases open to the Children and Supporting Families Department, aged between 16 and 25. It was noted that the team supported young people who needed care and support, who were in care or had left care. It was stressed that the support was voluntary, but that most young people took advantage of the support available. It was confirmed that 249 cases had been open to the team at the beginning of January. An overview of the Team's budget was given, noting that £1,040 million was available to meet the needs of young people. It was noted that a large portion of the budget (£800,000) was for accommodation and support needs. It was asked if arranging accommodation for individuals was currently challenging. In response, it was explained that the first aim was to keep the young people at home with families if this was possible. However, several homelessness referrals had been received which added to the demand for accommodation. 

     

    Details were given of the work allocation and processes. It was explained that a specific employee was designated for each case, depending on the nature of the case. It was noted that a Social Worker also undertook the assessments for Care and Support cases. It was reported that the intervention offered was dependent on the individual case, as agencies worked together to plan and meet the needs of the individual. It was noted that they focus on well-being, stability, education, work, training and development of independent skills. 

     

    Reference was made to the number of Asylum Seekers currently in Gwynedd. It was noted that 32 of the total of 249 cases open to the Post 16 Team were Asylum Seekers, following the Gwynedd allocation. It was recognised that this was a high percentage, in line with the quota that had been received, under the Home Office's National Transfer Scheme. It was emphasised that it was Gwynedd's responsibility to ensure support and accommodation for them, as they were treated as children in care until they were 18 years old. At the age of 18 they were Care Leavers and were the responsibility of the local authority until they were 25 years old. Those challenges and implications were elaborated upon, by referring to the lack of background information, wishes, needs, trauma, and emotional well-being. It was noted that the information obtained through the referral was very basic. It was added that language was also a barrier, as well as the young peoples' uncertainty and lack of understanding about the process. 

     

    The Pathway Plan was detailed, stating that all young people leaving care were expected to have a Pathway Plan which was reviewed regularly, as required.  

    It was noted that the content of the Plan varied from individual to individual and depended on their personal situation. It was expressed that emphasis on stabilisation and obtaining stable and safe accommodation to live in was expressed as a priority, as well as organising further education, according to the individual's ability. It was explained that nurturing better relationships with family members and parents was also an element, and that many aspects would be considered. It was confirmed that the Council will continue to be the 'Corporate Parent' for the individuals until they turned 25 years old. 

     

    More details were requested about the team and the means of operation and how the workload was allocated among team officers. In response, the arrangements were detailed with reference to the appendix showing the number of cases per officer. It was confirmed that the workload was shared fairly and that they did different types of work, including support, administrative and resource officers. It was highlighted that training was available for employees at all levels. It was confirmed that 4 social workers were part of the aftercare team, who are working closely with GISDA officers. It was confirmed that the work required rigorous multi-agency collaboration to achieve the service goal. 

     

     

    DECISION 

     

    ·       To accept and note the report.  

     

     

    Supporting documents:

    • 16+ Team, item 7. pdf icon PDF 131 KB
    • Appendix 1 - Post 16 Questionnaire, item 7. pdf icon PDF 1 MB