Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 50 KBVenue: Civic Centre, High Road, Wood Green, N22 8LE. View directions
Contact: Richard Burbidge 2923
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies For Absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillor Bevan and Councillor Canver for lateness.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.
A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.
Minutes: None |
|
|
Children's Centres in Haringey (Report of the Director of Children’s Services – To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children): To set out a proposed model for delivery of Children’s Centres. To follow
NOTE BY HEAD OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND MEMBER SERVICES
In accordance with Part Four Section B Paragraph 17 of the Constitution only the item set out in this notice may be considered at the special meeting, and no other business shall be considered.
Additional documents:
Minutes: It was noted that the previous proposed model for the delivery of Children’s Centres in the borough had been the subject of a call in. At this Overview & Scrutiny meeting stakeholders, such as head teachers, children’s centre managers, had expressed their unhappiness around the consequences and impact of the proposed model. The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s service had asked officers to undertake further work, with the involvement of interested parties, known as the Children’s Centre’s Alliance, to develop an alternative model for the delivery of children’s centre services. Subsequently a Children’s Centres task group was formed to undertake this work. The group included Head teachers, a Chair of Governors, Centre Managers from school-run centres, the Head of an LA-run centre, local authority officers (including those representing children’s social care), and representation from health services. Meetings were held with the wider Children’s Centre Alliance group, and with partners in the NHS, to develop an alternative model.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People placed on record her thanks to the working group and Alliance for their participation and hard work in compiling this alternative proposal in a short timescale. The new proposed alternative model was considered by both the Alliance and Council as an acceptable way forward. As was maintained and made clear following the call-in of the May Children’s Centre report, there would be no additional long-term funding for Highgate, Rokesly and North Bank Children’s Centres other than the commitment already given that money will continue to be made available to pay accommodation costs for health services to continue from these centres.However through a one off pump priming grant, the Council were able to support them to stay open. The pump priming grant would discontinue after a year but it would allow the centres time to develop business models on how children’s centre related activities could continue to be provided from the centre.
In considering the proposed model for delivery of children centres, there were some similarities between the model presented in the enclosed report and that set out in the report of 18th May 2011. It was based on four clusters, it did not feature ‘lead’ centres, and the work of each cluster would be overseen by a Local Partnership Board. There were now also some key differences. The composition of the clusters was different. With the exception of the existing local authority-run centres, staff will be employed and line managed not by the local authority but by the school in which they are primarily based. Whilst centres would work together to plan services across the cluster, there was no Cluster Manager role to co-ordinate/ oversee provision.
We noted that number of cluster options was considered by the Task Group. The preferred option was set out in the table in paragraph 9.2 of the report and was selected on the basis that it:
|