Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting and Members noted the information contained therein.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Morris.

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 as noted below).

None.

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 Register of Members’ 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 interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of 3 March 2016 be approved.

To note the terms of reference, protocol for Overview and Scrutiny and policy

areas/remits and membership for each Scrutiny Panel for 2016/17.

In answer to a question, it was noted that the scrutiny protocol had been  formally agreed by Council following cross party discussion by Members.

AGREED:

1.    That the terms of reference and protocol for overview and scrutiny be noted; and

2.    That the policy areas, remits  and membership for each scrutiny panel be noted.

To agree the areas for prioritisation in the 2016/17 work programme for the Panel.

The Chair reported that it was proposed that the Panel would undertake a review that considered how Haringey could become a child friendly borough.  The other major piece of work by the Panel would focus on the response to refugee and asylum seeker children and consideration would be given to doing this as a “scrutiny in a day” exercise.

It was noted that the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was now within the terms of reference of the Panel.  In response to this, an update on progress with the CAMHS Transformation would now be considered by the Children and Young People’s Panel rather than the Adults and Health Panel.

AGREED:

That, subject to the above mentioned addition, the areas outlined in Appendix A to the report be prioritised for inclusion in the 2016/17 scrutiny work programme and recommended for approval to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21 July. 

An opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Councillor Elin Weston, on developments within her portfolio.

Councillor Elin Weston, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families reported on key priorities from her portfolio as follows:

·         She was keen to build on the progress that had been outlined in the OFSTED inspection report of 2014 in services for Children in Need of Help and Protection, Looked After Children and Care Leavers.  It was important to ensure that services were safe and sustainable and able to progress to being rated as “good”.  She was pleased that a progress report on the issue had been included in the Panel’s work plan for the year.  There was a lot being done on this issue this would include work with Aspire, the borough’s children in care  council, to ensure the voice of the child was heard;

·         She wished to work towards the authority becoming a “child centred” Council and welcomed the Panel’s intention to undertake a review on the issue.  A key part of this would be ensuring that, where children and young people received help from the Children and Young People’s Service, their voice was heard and taken into account throughout.  The would also be about the Council, on a corporate basis, taking into account the needs of children in all areas of its work;

·         A new strategy for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities was to be developed;

·         The 30 hours free childcare offer for 3 and 4 year olds was due to implemented in 2017.  There was, as yet, no details of the funding arrangements and it was likely that a major piece of work would be required prior to its implementation; and

·         In respect of schools, the Government’s academisation agenda was still a major issue.  In addition, there was to be a change in the national funding formula in two years time which would affect schools significantly.  The specific details of the changes were not yet known but work would be needed to maintain strong and supportive links with schools and governors;

She responded to the Panel’s questions as follows;

·         There was considerable concern regarding the recent large increase in demand for social care.  The figures for May were double the number of contacts from the same month a year ago.  The precise reasons for the increase were not known and a lot of work was being undertaken with partners to establish them.  Contacts from the Police had gone up by 234% whilst those from schools had increased by 183%.  Jon Abbey, Director of Children’s Services, reported that similar increases had been experienced elsewhere and the work was focussing on getting a better understanding of demand.  It was noted that referrals were often very complex in nature and required a range of interventions with families.   A number were child protection referrals and had resulted in the need for care proceedings to be taken.  A temporary additional team of social workers was being brought in to alleviate the pressure.  It was hoped to have greater clarity on what action could be taken to alleviate demand by the next meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To report on the performance to date of the Early Help and Prevention Service.                                                                                       

Gareth Morgan, Head of Early Help and Prevention, reported that the Early Help Service was part of the Early Help Partnership, which was responsible for delivering the outcomes from the Early Help Strategy.  The service was responsible for delivering Tier 2, non statutory family support for vulnerable children, young people and families in Haringey since October 2015. The service aimed to reduce demand into statutory and high cost services and develop wider community resilience.  There were a number of opportunities that arose from partnership working, which included creating additional capacity, building local networks and aligning increasingly scarce resources amongst statutory and voluntary partners.  There were also threats, especially arising from the funding model that was currently in place. 

In the first six months of the operation of the service, it had supported 716 families.  Of these, 175 had achieved sustained outcomes.  There were currently 409 family cases that were open.  237 children and young people had been stepped down from statutory services and only 6 had been re-escalated into statutory service provision.  This compared well with figures for re-referral into statutory provision for cases that had been closed but which had not received early help support.

The aim was to enable families to stand on their own two feet and engage with local networks to remain self sufficient.  A locality model had been introduced and the teams were positioned in locations and covering areas based on a needs analysis that would allow them to have a roughly equal workload.

He responded to the Panel’s questions as follows:

·         The relationship with schools and childrens centres was developing quickly and positively.  The service now supported children attending 92% of the borough’s schools.  There was also a dedicated worker who provided support to children and young people in alternative provision, such as the Tuition Centre, the Octagon and the London Boxing Academy.  Each Children’s Centre also had a named family support worker who visited at least twice per week for half a day. 

·         The Troubled Families initiative defined “vulnerable” as families having multiple needs.  It was accepted that this was not a helpful or definitive term.  There was no specific legal definition that the service was bound by but the service aimed to take a broad view of what it constituted. 

·         The funding for the service came from three sources;

Ø  The Council provided core funding, which constituted approximately 30%.  This was the only source that the Council had direct control over;

Ø  £1.35 million from the schools block of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG); and

Ø  The national Troubled Family programme. This was partly based on outcomes.

·         The Youth and Participation Service was now a part of the Early Help service.  A universal service was currently provided at Bruce Grove and Muswell Hill youth centres as well as some targeted interventions.  A summer programme of activities at both centres was also being provided. In addition, youth engagement co-ordinators and youth practitioners were now part of locality teams.  Funding for youth services had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To consider the role of Early Help in addressing disproportionality within the Youth Justice System.

Gill Gibson, Assistant Director for Children’s Services (Quality Assurance, Early Help, and Prevention) reported that early help had a critical role in supporting children and young people who were at risk of becoming involved in the youth justice system.  The ongoing Charlie Taylor review of the youth justice system meant that the whole policy area was under review but some work had already begun to respond to the issues highlighted in the earlier interim review report.  There was to be a shift to a more proactive approach and early intervention would be at the heart of reforms. 

Gareth Morgan, Head of Early Help and Prevention, reported there were a number of overlapping risk factors, including educational under achievement and substance misuse.  The interventions that were most likely to be successful were those driven by early identification of young people at risk so that these could be dealt with by services in partnerships, for example, with schools.   There was a need to support young people at high risk of exclusion and non attendance and work was being done with schools and other providers to improve the identification of the early signs.  Targeted programmes were also being developed at the Bruce Grove youth centre.  These were for both boys and girls and focussed on young people’s good decision making and understanding risk.

Since 2009, Haringey Triage was the primary means of preventing entry into the youth justice system.  Only 12% of those who went through Triage re-entered the Youth Justice system.   The option of also offering those who went through Triage an early help package was being explored as one issue was the impact on younger siblings of an older brother or sister who had offended.

A lot of work had already been done to identify those at most risk of entering the youth justice system and high numbers of fixed term exclusions in year 9 and 10 was recognised as a significant risk factor.  The Panel noted black boys who had been excluded often had very good school attendance records and officers were currently looking at the reasons behind this. 

Jon Abbey, the Director of Children’s Services, reported that OFSTED had been looking at this issue of under achievement of Black African Caribbean children and young people at key stages 2 to 4.  They had come to Haringey as part of a fact finding visit to look at the gap in outcomes between Black African Caribbean and White pupils.   These mirrored the social-economic differences between the east and the west of the borough.  Schools and education provided an opportunity for successful interventions to take place with families.  Key stage 3 was a particularly crucial time and Headteachers had been involved in discussions on how and why issues developed at this stage and the type of interventions that were undertaken by schools.  One particular issue was the absence of key family members, which created a void.  Both Northumberland Park and Gladesmore schools had mentoring programmes that worked with young people to address  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.