Agenda and minutes

It has previously been agreed to alternate the responsibility of Chair for the joint meetings between Corporate parenting Advisory Committee and Children’s safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee. The Chair of the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee is due to chair this meeting.

Cllr Waters, Cabinet Member for Children, was elected  to chair the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Marion Wheeler and apologies for lateness from Cllr Stewart.

The chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.(Late items will be considered under the agenda item that they appear . New items will be dealt with at item 9 below. New items of exempt business  will be dealt with at item 11 below.

There were no formal items or urgent business.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

 (ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Members’ Register of Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interest are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Cllr Brabazon declared a personal interest in item 8, North London care proceedings project (NLCPP) First quarterly report – 01/06/13-31/08/13 by virtue of her role as a magistrate in the family court.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

There were no deputations, petitions, or questions put forward.

A presentation from the Brandon Centre, an organisation working with Haringey and Waltham Forest council on delivering and implementing intensive, evidence based interventions as an alternative to a young person going into care or custody. A briefing is also attached providing an idea of the current work with the council .

Geoffrey Baruch had been invited back to the joint meeting by the Chair to talk about the progress of the Multi Systemic Treatment (MST) Programme, a DFE funded project which the council along with Waltham Forest council were participating in. Moira Lammond was also introduced to the Committee; she was working directly with council on this project which was ultimately aimed at mainstreaming MST intervention for young people on the edge of care.

MST was initially developed in the US as a treatment programme for young people displaying antisocial behaviour and aimed at reducing youth criminal activity.  The outcomes of the programme are cost savings by decreasing the public cost from youth criminal activity such as imprisonment, and putting young people into care.

The theoretical basis behind MST examines the factors leading to delinquent behaviour and involves a therapy team working with the families. The team target multidiscipline risks in a comprehensive yet individualised way. The caregiver’s co-operation is paramount to the long term positive outcomes for the child. There will be daily activities for the parents to complete to change the system in the family and ensure the intervention successes are sustainable. The MST therapist will work around the routine of the family to endeavour get the best results for them.

Moira explained the quality assurance process which enables the project to demonstrate adherence to the MST model. The Committee noted that the therapists will need to record their one to one sessions with the parents and record work with family and align this to the MST model. The supervisor therapist and line manager will also in turn need to record their work and be subject to scrutiny. This all leads to ensuring that the Brandon centre can clearly demonstrate their adherence to the MST model and also helps make sure they are using it effectively.

There was a contractual relationship between the council and the Brandon centre, initially, for a year, for two therapists to work with 9 families. The intervention will last 5 months and there is always a therapist on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Due to the amount of contact that is needed with the families a therapist will have a case load of about 4 families. 

It was noted that the therapist will work with the adults in the household as well as the young person. The therapy worked on changing the whole system in and around the family, including schools and teachers.  Often the young person will have poor school attendance, or not be enrolled in mainstream schools or have a gang affiliation.

In relation to treatment for violence and gang affiliation, the MST project in Haringey and Waltham Forest was treating more girls than boys. Therefore, this was not a gender specific problem.  The family may have issues with substance mis-use, depression and the therapist will also be trained to help them with these problems. The recent achievements of the project in Haringey included:

• 12 cases completed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

This report sets out performance data and trends for an agreed set of measures relating to: contacts, referrals and assessments , child protection, children looked after, prevention and early intervention - including special educational needs, in year fair access, young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs),youth offending and service effectiveness.

Before considering the Performance report, Committee Members raised concerns about the findings of the recent Serious Case Review Overview Report on Child T published by the LSCB (Local Safeguarding Children’s Board) and sought assurance that lessons were being learnt by the Children’s services from this, and previous Serious Case Reviews. The Chair asked Members to note that the Serious Case Review Overview report on Child T related to the period between mid 2010 and early 2011 and there have been major changes in the way in which Children services have been configured both locally and nationally.

Committee Members further expressed disquiet at the lack of information provided to them about the case, prior to the publication of the Serious Case Review Overview report. They were also concerned about their apparent separation from the LSCB process, as elected Members, because this affected the level of knowledge they had about issues in the Children’s service. Members were advised, by the Chair, that the LSCB have criteria for taking forward a Serious Case Review, which is governed by separate legal rules, and provide the reasons for completing the SCR  and publication .The Chair shared the Committee’s frustration about the apparent isolation of elected Members from the LSCB process and explained that the LSCB is a statutory partnership body, required by law, separate to the council and not part of the council’s decision making structure.   The Membership of the board is made up partner agencies and only includes senior officer representatives from agencies working with children. Serious Case Reviews can only be completed by the LSCB and are studies into partner failings and the lessons that have to be learned.

Committee Members felt the Serious Case Review overview report provides a salient reminder that there is always a need, as Members, to  continually question and evaluate whether the Children’s services is adhering to core safeguarding responsibilities. In response, it was noted that the service was focused on learning the lessons from this period and regular performance reports provided to both Cabinet Advisory   Committees provided councillors with a continual daily insight of how the service worked and if they were meeting the needs for safeguarding children and acting as good corporate parents for looked after children.  These were the reports to rely on, in relation to how the service worked.

The Chair explained that  the Serious Case Review overview report had not been put forward to the joint meeting as it did not meet the  purpose of these meetings  which is  to look at polices and work areas relating to both safeguarding and looked after children. The Children’s and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel was due to raise issues concerning the SCR overview report at their meeting next week. However, it was accepted that the SCR overview report raised issues pertaining to the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee’s remit and the joint Committee agreed there should also be consideration of the Serious Case Review overview report by this Committee.

The Chair of the Safeguarding Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Report of the Haringey Court Manager about the work of the council with  Barnet and  Enfield to reduce avoidable delays in care proceedings and to improve decision making for children subject to care proceedings.

Barnet, Enfield and Haringey boroughs haveagreed to work together as the North London Care Proceedings Project (NLCPP) to reduce avoidable delay and to improve decision making for children subject to care proceedings.

An earlier partnership project had been taken forward by Hammersmith& Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Ealing councils to look at the whole care proceedings process, starting from the child becoming known to social care. The findings had been analysed by UCL and recommendations put forward for other boroughs to consider. The findings included streamlining how services work together and anticipating the assessments likely to be asked for by the court and completing these in advance.

The revised Public Law Outline (PLO) also now helped with a significant change in the emphasis given to evidence provided by social workers to the Court. The recommendation was that the social worker’s evidence and the children’s guardian’s evidence is the ‘expert’ evidence on which the court will determine the case. The Committee also noted the requirement for court reports, from social workers, to be succinct summaries with good supporting evidence.

The Court manager provided some information about her role. This included tracking care proceedings on a daily basis to stop delays, supporting social workers with the new requirements for reports and making sure that compilation of their evidence is succinct and clear. 

So far the project had been successful in instigating extended family assessments to allow a member of the family, where applicable, to take on parental responsibility for the child, enabling a child to stay in their family and not be subjected to extended court proceedings. The group was also looking at family group conferences to consider how these can be further improved. From looking at the cases issued  in the last three months, there was a need to take forward an analysis of  ethnicity  and  understand if this has an impact.

The report provided information about the emphasis on continuity and how this was to make a difference. There was an in house team to draw advice from across teams and continue working with social workers  to get timely decisions  for children.

In response to questions the Committee learned that:

• There is a positive reaction by social workers to the support that is given by the Court manager.

• The current transfer of cases from First Response through to Safeguarding and Support and finally to Children in Care did not impact on case progression as there was good cross team working. It was explained that delays begin once the care proceedings have started and this can be caused by solicitors for the parents requesting additional information or additional assessments being requested by the judge.

• It was clarified that Barnet and Enfield had the same Children’s social care structures in place and were suited to working jointly with this project.

• The average duration of care proceedings in Haringey in comparison to the national average were markedly higher and the reason for this was due to two long running cases which were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following items as they may 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.

The press and public were excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following items as they contained exempt information as defined in section 100a of the local government act 1972(as amended by section 12A of the local government act 1985) paragraphs 1&2 namely information relating to an individual and information likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

• Agreed to locate guidance relating to criteria for conducting a Serious Case Review overview report and its location with the LSCB.

• Agreed there is further guidance provided to Committee Members about how the LSCB works its role in the borough and in relation to the council.

• Agreed there is a legal clarification on whether elected Members can be notified of the commissioning of serious case reviews and have involvement of their consideration when complete.

06^th March 2014 7.30pm

Thursday  6^th  March 2014 7.00pm