Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hare, Morris and Stennett and Lyn Carrington .

An apology was received from Councillor Gunes who had to leave early (at 7pm during the informal meeting with Aspire) to attend another meeting.

NOTED that from 7pm the meeting was not quorate as only two members were in attendance, therefore no formal decisions were made.

Feedback from the earlier meeting with Aspire

NOTED the actions listed in the notes of the meeting with Aspire.

In response to questioning it was confirmed that the Council did not fund Aspire through the Youth Service budget.  Further information clarifying funding for Aspire would be provided.

Action: NeelamBhardwaja

The Chair will consider the admission of late items of urgent business. Late items will be considered under the agenda item they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 13 below.

NONE

NONE

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 8^th December 2014

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2014 were confirmed as a correct record but, due to there being only two members in attendance and the meeting not being quorate, the minutes would be formally approved at the next meeting.

a.         Child Sexual Exploitation

Jon Abbey, Interim Director of Children’s Services, updated the Committee on the Council’s Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) awareness campaign.

NOTED that

·         a task and finish group had met four times and devised a strategy, which had been signed-off by the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB);

·         the five recommendations of the pan-London peer review were being considered to ensure they were reflected in the Council’s CSE action plan and strategy priorities;

·         posters focussing on CSE were provided in safeguarding packs and sent to Haringey schools and businesses;

·         both web-based and face-to-face training on recognising CSE were available to staff.

The report will provide an analysis of performance information in relation to Looked After Children. The report will also update the Committee on health checks undertaken for looked after children.

RECEIVED the report on Performance for the Year to January 2015, included in the agenda pack (pages 7 to 29). 

NOTED in response to discussion:

·         the improvement in the number of Looked After Children (LAC) with up to date dental checks;

·         figures on the Council’s position on permanency plans would be provided at the next meeting;

Action: Neelam Bhardwaja

·         some concentrated work was being done to reduce the number of children going missing from care, this included police intelligence on  missing children which the Council could match with its records;

·         there had been an improvement in the number of Personal Education Plans (PEP) being completed since publication of the report but the team was still not at an acceptable level and social workers were being challenged about this.  Reasons for non completion of PEPs within timescales included staff turnover and lack of information and narrative threads on the information system.  Going forward the Mosaic information recording system would be used to automatically flag up when new PEP meetings should be booked;

·         the Committee acknowledged that some children were too busy to engage in the process of PEP meetings or felt that they were repetitive or did not want to be seen with social workers in school.  It was noted, however, that PEPs were a legal requirement;

·         in response to questioning it was reported that approximately 70% of the 21 foster carers recently recruited were based in Haringey.  More details on their locations would be provided at the next meeting.  It was acknowledged that having carers in other boroughs was beneficial and that Haringey used carers in South London with experience in special needs;

Action: Jon Abbey

·         NRS conducted the Council’s foster carer advertising campaigns and had been delivering good carers for young children but the focus was now on finding carers for teenagers as adolescents were more difficult to place;

·         NRS carers were cheaper that IFA carers by £300-400 per week.  Some IFA carers had taken the decision to become permanent Haringey carers and were going through the assessment process;

·         NRS was paid by results and received £6,000 for each foster carer they delivered to the Council and included all the marketing and assessment costs. The Council was able to screen candidates at an early stage, before they were accepted;

·         recent advertising using banners on display around the Borough particularly on school railings had been cost effective, with a good number of prospective carers coming forward in the west of the Borough.  There would be a long assessment process and officers would report back to the Committee on the number of successful carers recruited through the advertising banners.

Action: Jon Abbey

AGREED to note the report.

To provide the Committee with an update on the care for disabled children

RECEIVED the report on Looked After Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), pages 15 to 20 of the agenda pack, as laid out in the report.

NOTED that

·         the conversion from Statements to Education, Health and Social Care Plans (EHC) would assist in defining the services required for early help and intervention;

·         each local authority worked with different thresholds for compiling EHC plans and, in relation to outer borough placements, the resident borough was responsible for conducting EHC plans;

·         all but two of the children in Haringey’s residential care homes had special educational needs; the needs were mainly around autism and mental health.

AGREED to note the report.

To provide  the Committee with information about the use of and decision making around the Pupil Premium Grant.

RECEIVED the report updating on Pupil Premium Plus Expenditure on Children and Young People in Care, pages 21 to 29 of the agenda pack.

REPORTED that

·         the Virtual School managed the Pupil Premium (PP) fund for Looked After Children (LAC) and held schools to account for how the money was used.  PP spending should link with PEPs (Personal Education Plans);

·         community schools received the PP for LAC directly in their budgets. Out of borough schools were required to invoice the local authority and some had not yet done so, despite the Service reminding them by letter, phone call and email;

·         the Virtual School’s service used funds productively to improve the attainment of Year 6 pupils, and science learning, and, to run a trauma recovery pilot scheme in partnership with the DfE.  Any unspent PP funds had to be returned to the Department for Education (DfE). 

NOTED, further to questions, that

·         schools were responsible for justifying the use of the money against the attainment of pupils and it was recognised that schools often had many children to report on;

·         some schools had refused to apply for the PP funding and so not all the money allocated for schools had been claimed;

·         the Maths Club provided by Virtual Schools (using PP funds) was a five- week course for a small group of 5 or 6 children;

AGREED to note the report.

To provide the Committee with an update on diversionary activities to be taken forward to reduce the number of 14-17 year old looked after children.

Report to follow

AGREED that the report on Diversionary Activities would be presented at the next meeting.

Action: Clerk & Jon Abbey

A discussion update on adoption provision, in light of the Edward Timpson MP letter

REPORTED that the letter from Edward Timpson MP had indicated that the Council was not performing well based on one performance indicator. Haringey was one of 11 local authorities who had received similar letters about not meeting targets.

NOTED further to discussion and questions that:

·         the Council had conducted its own diagnostic assessment of the adoption service and had improved tracking in order to link children with families at early stages;

·         the Council took part in ‘finders meetings’ as part of a wider consortium;

·         33 children had been placed in adoption this year and waiting times had reduced from an average of 628 days to 570 days; the target being 487 days;

·         the Children’s Act required local authorities and adoption agencies to assess more people in the adoption process and to exhaust all possibilities of potential candidates.  Evidence had to be provided, in court, to show that decisions were made in the best interests of the child;

·         extended family were able to be formally assessed as potential adoption candidates even if they were not financially secure or were not in  stable relationships. As part of these assessments the Council had to explore the available support to candidates (for example, in areas such as stopping smoking or dealing with obesity), which placed considerable strain on Council resources;

·         there had been a rise in numbers of parents opting for Special Guardianship Orders.

AGREED to note the update and that work was on-going to improve adoption rates.

As per Item 3

None.

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of any urgent items that contain exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985): paras 1 & 2: namely information relating to any individual, and information likely to reveal the identity of an individual.  

None.

To consider the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 8^th December

None.

As per Item 3

None.

Future meetings

NOTED the following dates:

6 July 2015

5 October 2015

5 January 2016

All meetings are scheduled to start at 6.30pm.