Agenda and minutes

The Chair of Corporate Parenting Committee and Chair of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee had previously agreed , outside the meeting,  that they would alternate the  responsibility of Chair  for the joint meetings . The   Chair of the  Corporate Parenting Committee is due to chair this meeting.

 Previously  the  joint committee had agreed that the  role of Chair is alternated between the Chair of Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee  and Chair of  Children’s  Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee.  Cllr  Reith, Chair of the Corporate Parenting Advisory committee chaired this meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Solomon, Reece, Stewart and Watson.

Cllr Amin provided apologies for lateness.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where 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 items of urgent business.

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, license, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

No declarations of interest were put forward.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

There no  deputations, petitions or public questions for the joint committee to consider.

 The Assistant Director for Children and Families and the  Assistant Director for  Safeguarding will  provide an overview of the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub. The MASH is a multi-agency safeguarding hub, which brings together a variety of agencies into an integrated multi-agency team, where they can share intelligence on vulnerable children, families and adults. Haringey’s MASH build’s on the existing First Response Multi Agency Team which has been operating since May 2010. It co-locates Metropolitan Police, Health Colleagues and Social Workers, together with support from education, housing and adult services. MASH will enhance this service through the additional police intelligence, and the co-location of other agencies such as Child Abuse Investigation Team (CAIT) and adult safeguarding.

 The Committee received a presentation from the Head of First Response about the   newly established MASH (Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub). This team builds on the existing First Response Multi Agency Team (FRMAT) which had been operating since May 2010. It co-located the Metropolitan Police, health and social workers, together with support from education and housing.  The MASH enhances this model through having additional police intelligence, and the co-location of other agencies such as adult safeguarding, probation and mental health. The MASH team are together in one secure location, working together to best ensure vulnerable children in the borough are identified and properly cared for and protected.

Haringey was one of only two boroughs in the country currently operating with the MASH. Confidentiality is   paramount  and in this co location partners  are able discuss the referrals in a multi-agency meeting, instantly sharing information about the family and deciding on the course of action for the child/ young person and family.   This information sharing process will also allow the team to analyse information and identify any trends/patterns to referrals.  Tim Loughton MP visited the team recently and commended the team on how well they worked together and had also been impressed by how the team had followed up the cases which they had referred.   Indeed extracts from recent Ofsted inspections compared to those in the past, demonstrated how far the service had come in improving the speed and quality of decisions being made to safeguard vulnerable children and young people.  The early information sharing about a family in a multi-agency environment also aided identifying how to support families at an early stage. The multi agency discussion would enable the right package of services to be commissioned for the family or appropriate links made with services such as Children’s Centre. Early intervention with families was key to stopping children coming into care

The committee asked about benchmark figures to better understand the performance of the MASH in comparison to other comparator boroughs.    Other boroughs, apart from Devon, had yet to fully establish a MASH (Multi Agency safeguarding Hub) but this would change over time as more teams were compiled. The Children’s Service would then be able to look at how quickly Initial assessments and referrals were being completed in comparison to other boroughs with the MASH.  In terms of a review of the performance of the team it was noted that a London Safeguarding board would monitor this. Members of the committee were also welcome to visit and see first hand the work of the team.

Members sought understanding on how information from different databases of partners was interpreted and shared, in particular mental health service files.  It was noted that the MASH were able to  access the  front page  of a mental health service referral which would provide them the necessary information on  whether the client had  children and enable them to understand the nature of the referral.  The partner representative themselves would interpret the data from their own partner agency and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This report is an update of Children and Families key safeguarding and Looked After Children’s performance information at the end of February 2012.

Safeguarding performance data

There was no significant reduction in  the number of contacts and referrals  to the safeguarding service during the month of February. The committee noted that  the service was  investigating the rate of   referrals but  to be aware  that there would be genuine  reasons for the contacts  becoming referrals.

The service was reaching   their targets for  the completion of  initial and core assessments.  The independent member of the Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee had completed  recent audits for the committee and had not raised concerns regarding the quality of assessments.

The number of child protection cases held by Haringey was higher compared to comparator boroughs but the service were confident, upon investigation of the cases, that this number was correct.  This also applied to the number of children on a child in need plan. Regular audits were completed on plans to check progress against their original objectives.   The committee learned that  when children were passed to the children in need team ,it was because there were universal community based services that could help manage the risks and issues identified in the plan.

Members sought understanding about the Safeguarding Service’s  links with the newly restructured children’s centres which were working to a cluster model.  It was noted that there was an allocated social worker to each cluster  who would also  have links to the MASH .Under  four’s represented 41% of cases referred to the  MASH and  there was  current discussion with the Head of Early  Years  about the high referral rate  of  children from this category and considering  whether  the assessments of under 4’s at children centres  needed to  be different to  provide more placements for these children.

LAC Performance data

The  Joint Committee continued to consider performance information relating to LAC in the month of  February  which had also been considered at the start of the week by the Corporate Parenting Committee.

• HY34 Number of social work posts permanently filled The vacancy level did not warrant concern and the levels of staff turnover were at expected levels. 

• Op200 – Cost of service per looked after child The closure of the two children’s homes meant that no new young people were being admitted to the residential homes .It was clarified that the high weekly cost of placements, per looked after child, was not associated with the proposed closure of the two residential children’s homes.  The NLSA were funding a commissioning manager that was based in Haringey but working on behalf of the other NLSA boroughs to examine driving down unit costs associated with commissioning services for LAC and  also increasing the quality of service that they can access.  In preparation for the closure of the  children’s homes the service were putting in place semi independent  accommodation for  young people currently living in the homes  and  recruiting more specialist foster carers  that  can  deal with  more challenging behaviour of older children.   This course of action would continue and members were assured that, should the use of private residential homes be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The  Committee will consider a presentation about the work of the Family Intervention project.

The committee received a presentation on the work of the Family Intervention project and noted that the project was part of the Children in Social Care team The project was established in Feb 2010 with external grant funding and was unique to other services provided by the Children and Social Care teams in that it was not solely working with the child but working with the family as a whole . The family  perspective was taken forward in assessment process.  The team working with the families came from a multi discipline backgrounds and used evidence based practice and intervention methods. They worked with highly complex families and  had the aim of  building on their strengths. 

When looking at the issues faced by the family, they would consider how individuals  in the family unit had contributed to the problems being faced by the family and assess how to support them.  The work involved empowering the families to take control of the solutions that needed to take place to change their circumstances.  Often  the families had been subject to investigation   by statutory agencies and had consequently developed a negative view of them.  For the family to achieve their intended outcomes they would need  accept this support  from the outset   and be willing to participate in an intensive programme.   The work with the families was likely to last 2 years and changes take place incrementally.

The work with the families involved intensive support   starting from 7.00am until 8.00pm at night over a long period of time and meant that   support workers were only allocated 4-6 families.  It began with 16-25 weeks of persistent outreach work.  Support workers  would usually undertook practical tasks with families, helped them build relationships, make use of a range of interventions, challenge poor behaviour/. Their overall aim was help build the capacity of the family to deal with issues and problems independently.

It was a hybrid service and community based but helping families deal with a range of services and partner agencies. Currently the project was undertaking a review and evaluation of their work over the last two years and check if the families had achieved their intended outcomes i.e. a supportive network.   Also the Deputy  Director for children and families  would be examining the model of working that has been used to support the families and whether it could  be expanded out in the children and young people’s service. Following questions to the project co-ordinator,  committee members  gained the following knowledge:

• That although the focus of the work was with the family ,as a whole, the needs of the child/ children were paramount and families were told at the outset that if the support  worker  found there to  be risks of harm to the child it would be reported to the Safeguarding team.

•  How the relationship between the family and the support worker  would work was set out at the  start. The support worker would explain that  there would be no collusion with the family if illegal activities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business to consider.

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for consideration from 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.  

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of exempt business to consider.

 Monday 29^th October 2012 7.00pm – Provisional date and subject to member agreement when considering the Council Committee Calendar of meetings.

October 29^th 2012 provisional  - to be confirmed at council AGM.