Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Corrections

Nandini Ganesh noted some errors in Item 7 of the minutes. The following paragraph:

“Nandini Ganesh raised a specific concern regarding gaps in the provision of

plans for 19-24 year olds. There was a lack of clarity as to whether provision

would be made, to illustrate, if a student sought a level 2 plan, an EHCP was

required. She continued, referring to the use of parent advocacy at panels

and enquired when this would happen.

Should be replaced with:

“Nandini Ganesh noted that students in the middle years of college, e.g. in their second year or studying for a Level 2 course, were often not aware that they could apply for an EHC Plan. She then asked when parent advisors would start attending EHC panels.”

RESOLVED

With the corrections noted above, the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2016 were approved as a correct record and were signed by the Chair.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marcus Ginn and Philippa O’Driscoll.

Nandini Ganesh noted that she had to leave after the Travel Care and Support Service item.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

There were no declarations of interest.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions. For a more complete answer at the meeting please email your question ahead of time to - david.abbott@lbhf.gov.uk with the subject - ‘CEPAC Question’.

There were no public questions.

This report provides an overview of recent developments of relevance in Children’s Services.

Clare Chamberlain, Executive Director of Children’s Services, presented the report and took questions from the Committee.

GCSE Results

Councillor Caroline Ffiske noted that she knew some of the West London Free School results were incorrect and asked if they were provisional results. Clare Chamberlain responded that the data came directly from schools but not all of the results had been submitted yet. Once they were submitted they would be verified by the Department for Education (DfE) and final results would be published in January 2017.

Councillor Elaine Chumnery asked if there was a reason for the relatively low EBACs scores for Phoenix High School, Fulham College Boys’ School, and Hurlingham Academy. Dennis Charman commented that the EBACs performance measure was not compulsory for schools yet – while many schools had already begun using it internally and had seen good results, others were further behind. Clare Chamberlain said Ian Heggs could provide a written explanation to the committee.

Ark Swift Redevelopment

Matt Jenkins, in reference to 3.3 of the report, asked if the redevelopment of the Ark Swift site was being funded by the Council. Rachael Wright-Turner responded that the redevelopment was being funded by Ark.

Unaccompanied asylum seekers and refugees

Councillor Alan De’Ath, with reference to 4.1 of the report, noted that three of the children were described as ‘long term missing’ and asked officers to clarify what that meant. Steve Miley responded that it meant they had gone ‘underground’ – they would be officially categorised as missing by the police and the local authority. If social services thought they were in immediate danger there would be a publicity campaign. Councillor De’Ath asked what percentage of those who go missing came back. Steve Miley said it was a low percentage – young people fearing deportation were unlikely to return to the authorities.

Administrative support to social workers

Councillor Elaine Chumnery noted that the Munroe Review of Child Protection from 2011 made recommendations to help alleviate the administrative burden on social workers but it seemed that had been lost. Clare Chamberlain responded that Partners in Practice (later in the agenda) put a focus on removing bureaucratic barriers for social workers. Children’s Services had also recently embarked on a project with FutureGov to look at improving the case management system to free up social worker time.

School Meals Contract Monitoring and Mobilisation Update

Rachael Wright Turner highlighted the school meals update following discussion at the previous meeting. She noted that the update set out data from the robust monitoring and engagement process for the contract. Jody Nason reported that following concerns raised at the previous meeting, officers had visited the schools mentioned and had resolved the issues.

Councillor Caroline Ffiske asked how parents choosing to send their children with pack lunches would affect pricing and ultimately, the viability of the contract. Rachael Wright-Turner responded that the contract cost was based on expected volumes. The price was set per meal and schools only paid for meals served. If fewer people chose to have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Cabinet Member will give a verbal update of their activities since the previous meeting.

The Chair noted that Councillor Sue Fennimore had been assuming the duties of the Cabinet Member for Children and Education while Councillor Sue Macmillan was on maternity leave, and congratulated Councillor Macmillan on the birth of her son.

Councillor Sue Fennimore gave the following updates:

·         She attended the Shared Services Lead Members meeting where SEN services, the youth offending service, and the Integrated Family Support Service were discussed.

·         She visited Fulham Cross Girls’ School and met the Executive Headteacher – she noted the wonderful work going on at the school.

·         She attended a market engagement day for the new Travel Care and Support contract.

·         She attended an event for OnSide Youth Zones – a dynamic new approach for youth services.

·         And finally she attended a planning meeting for running a pilot of the ‘Show Racism the Red Card’ campaign in local schools.

Eleanor Allen also offered her congratulations to Councillor Macmillan and asked whether schools had been informed of the interim Cabinet Member arrangements. Councillor Fennimore noted that a number of schools had been in contact with her already but said she would follow up after the meeting.

This report provides an overview of the travel care and support project, the new service specification, and the process through which it was developed.

Jody Nason presented the report that gave an overview of the Travel Care and Support Service project including the service specification and the process through which it was developed. Officers had looked at the lessons learned from the previous procurement and at what went well with the more recent Jack Tizard contract. Through the development process, including detailed consultations, engagement, and co-development the following areas were identified:

·         Passenger & Travel Care - caring for, and understanding the travel and mobility needs of children.

·         Communication & Relationships – better information sharing between providers, young people, parents, carers, schools and after school provision.

·         Quality – a person centred service with the unique needs of each child or young person well known and understood by providers and staff.

·         Transport & Safety - children and young people should be collected and returned on time at agreed points and never left unsupervised.

·         Staffing & Recruitment - staff should be well trained to support and care children and young people’s individual and often complex needs.

·         Timing & Logistics – children’s comfort should be paramount when route planning.

Rachael Wright-Turner added that they had just held a market engagement day, which was an opportunity to present the Council’s vision for the service to potential providers and get a sense of the response from them. 45 transport provider staff attended, including representatives from six social enterprises, and feedback on the new specification was very positive. Providers had an additional four weeks prior to the tender going live to speak with officers and learn more about the Council’s requirements for the service.

Councillor Elaine Chumnery commended officers and the Cabinet Members for their work on the new service. She highlighted the importance of having parents and school representatives involved in co-developing the specification and the clear community benefits it offered.

The Chair noted that a working group had been set up two years ago when the issues with the previous service had been uncovered and she was pleased to see how far it had progressed. It was also affirming to know there were providers that shared the Council’s vision for a better kind of transport service.

Nandini Ganesh commented that the Council did a brilliant job with the development of the specification - she was very involved as a representative of Parentsactive and she knew of many other parents who were also involved, either through the working group or those who were called for their views. She asked if the existing providers came to the market engagement day. Rachael Wright-Turner said they did, though there was a marked difference between the way the Council saw the new transport service and the way the traditional passenger transport sector operated. Problems in the past had stemmed from providers winning bids with very low cost contracts that fell down on quality. The new contract specification was weighted to favour quality over price, ensuring that the successful provider would be guaranteed to deliver a high quality service.

Vic Daniels asked what level of due diligence was carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report provides an update on the progress of Focus on Practice, the programme within family services funded by the Department for Education Innovation in Social Care programme, and the plans for work as Partners in Practice with the DfE over the next four years.

Clare Chamberlain presented the report that gave an update on Focus on Practice, a programme within Family Services funded by the Department for Education Innovation in Social Care programme, and the plans for the service’s work as Partners in Practice with the DfE over the next four years.

The core objective of Focus on Practice was for social workers and other practitioners to use their professional expertise to help create positive change for families and better outcomes for children and young people. To that end the three councils were developing a Centre for Social Work, similar to a hospital trust teaching authority where staff from other authorities would come for placements. The DfE had also given licence for the Focus on Practice partners to think about the bureaucratic and regulatory barriers that could be loosened or removed to increase the time social workers had to spend working with families directly.

Councillor Elaine Chumnery asked what the feedback from social workers had been. Steve Miley responded that he was delighted with the enthusiasm that social workers have shown towards the programme. They particularly like that they get significant training that is practice based. They also get access to clinical therapists to augment their work. Ultimately these programmes freed-up social workers to spend more time with families and help people.

The Chair noted that, from speaking to social workers at Adoption and Fostering panels, the additional training and resources had given staff confidence in preparing for Ofsted inspections and generally improved staff morale. She asked if staff turnover had reduced because of the initiatives. Steve Miley responded that a number of staff members had stayed to complete the training, and even joined because of the training offer.

Vic Daniels asked how officers knew how much of social workers time was spent working with families as compared to the time spent on paperwork. Clare Chamberlain said they had done time logging exercises in the past and there were a number of studies that all gave a similar ratio. She said it would be useful to carry out similar exercises in future to see if the programmes had the desired impact.

Steve Miley commented that there were two specific bids – one was to reduce the number of children going into care by 20 percent, and the second was the reduce the re-referral rate. Those were the key measures for success and to achieve them Family Services had to engender permanent change in families. Councillor Elaine Chumnery asked if the Council had the right services in place to make sure that happened. Steve Miley said they had made progress by putting domestic violence specialists in social work teams. Feedback from social workers was that support for victimised women was far greater than support for men to change their behaviour. Unless male perpetrators changed their behaviour there was a significant danger of re-offending.

Councillor Alan De’Ath asked if, with staff from other authorities coming to the Centre for Social Work to train, there were commercial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This report highlights the significant responsibilities which the local authority has in respect to ensuring the protection of children, and how it discharges them.

The committee agreed to take the Child Protection Annual Report together with the Local Safeguarding Children Board annual report.

RESOLVED

The Committee reviewed and commented on the report.

This report includes key details about the demographics of local children, safeguarding responsibilities and activities of agencies which are represented on the LSCB, an overview of the LSCB priorities, activities and details of its budget; a review of the outcomes of Serious Case Reviews and learning that has resulted from these.

Steve Miley presented the Child Protection Annual Report. He noted the broader context - that child protection was the primary focus for Ofsted and that H&F had recently achieved a ‘good’ grade, putting it amongst the very best local authorities in the Country. However, there was always room to improve. Since the inspection, referrals had risen by around ten to twenty percent but all of the work was allocated and statutory timescales were still being met. Family support and child protection services were stretched though and officers were looking to improve that through Focus on Practice and Family Assist.

Jean Daintith, Chair of Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), introduced the Local Safeguarding Children Board annual report. She noted that the LSCB was a multi-disciplinary group involved professionals from health, police, social care, community safety, housing, probation, prisons etc. that met quarterly and held special meetings for serious case reviews if a child was seriously harmed or died. The Board was looking at better ways of working – having less time in meetings and thinking more about making the work relevant to both the public and professionals.

Councillor Alan De’Ath asked if the increase in the number child protection plans was a national trend. Steve Miley said the cohort was very small so numbers fluctuated but officers were investigating and could report back once analysis was complete.

Councillor Elaine Chumnery asked if officers considered the cumulative impact of agencies working with families – if a number of different professionals were interacting with families it could become overwhelming. Steve Miley agreed there was a danger, particularly when dealing with siblings. Family Assist involved only one person from that team and they developed close links with the family. Family Services tried to think which person was the most likely to create change.

Councillor Elaine Chumnery, noting the recommendation from Ofsted about partnership attendance, asked if there was anything the committee, or the Council, could do to improve attendance. Jean Daintith responded that attendance was generally good, and noted that often what happened outside of meeting was just as important. Meaningful engagement and good communication was key.

Councillor Caroline Ffiske asked for an update on the Troubled Families initiative. Clare Chamberlain responded that it was ongoing, the work was fully integrated into the Early Help service.

Vic Daniels asked if the increase in referrals was good news, in that problems were being better identified, or bad in that there was generally greater need. Steve Miley said it wasn’t clear. The LSCB’s function was to make sure other agencies were thinking about these issues so the increase could be reflective of that good work to raise awareness. On the other hand, it could also be indicative of increases in deprivation, mental ill health, and other things that negatively affected a child's environment. It was likely to be a mixture of both.

Dennis Charman, in reference to page 47 of the report, noted that there had been l large reduction in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Committee is asked to review its work programme.

The Committee asked that the childcare sufficiency item on the work programme include case studies and a breakdown of childcare costs across the borough. They asked that this information be provided at the January meeting. Councillor Sue Fennimore noted that the Poverty and Worklessness Strategy included recommendations related to childcare as a barrier to work and they could be included in the report.

The Chair asked for a regular update of national items that had a local impact, to be included within the Executive Directors report.

The Committee also requested an update on upcoming changes school funding.

The next meeting will be held on 30 January 2017 at 7pm in the Town Hall.

The next meeting was schedule for 30 January 2017.