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 on the agenda in respect of filming at the meeting and Members noted the information contained therein.

None.

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 meeting of 29 June 2017 (attached).

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of 29 June 2017 be approved.

To receive an update on progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel’s Review on Disproportionality within the Youth Justice System.                                                                     

Jennifer Sergeant, the Head of Targeted Response and Youth Justice reported on progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel’s review on disproportionality within the youth justice system.  She stated that the issue was not unique to Haringey.  There were a large number of recommendations from the review and these were cross cutting in nature, requiring input from Early Help, the Police, regeneration and the NHS. 

She highlighted the following specific areas of progress:

·         Haringey had, using the disproportionality toolkit, recently submitted Haringey’s outcomes to the Youth Justice Board.  Disproportionality was now also embedded in the Youth Justice Service’s performance framework;  

·         Funding for the next year had been obtained by Mac UK to finance Project Future.  The economic impact of their work was being assessed by the London School of Economics;

·         A social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) pilot plan was being developed by the Council’s Early Help service, with the intention of it becoming part of their core offer to families;

·         The Schools Forum had a Black and Minority Ethnic Steering Group, which was addressing issues such as underachievement and the most effective use of the Pupil Premium; and

·         Discussions were taking place with Police colleagues regarding the setting up of a reverse mentoring scheme with young people for the borough.

Progress was being made across all of the areas covered by the review’s recommendations.  It was perhaps not quite as quick as would have been wished but the issues in question were system wide.  There might be a need to review how targets were measured so this could be done in a suitably robust manner.

In answer to a question regarding the recent publication of the Lammy Review, she stated that it had been welcome and the Council had contributed to it. It had referred specifically to youth justice and the need to intervene early and Haringey was well positioned to have conversations with law enforcement agencies regarding its implications.  In particular, issues regarding Police behaviour were being taken up locally. 

Eubert Malcolm, Head of Community Safety and Enforcement, reported that confidence in the Police in Haringey compared poorly with other London boroughs, with it rated 29^th out of 32.  The Community Safety Partnership were addressing this issue and the conclusions of the review tied in with this agenda.

Ms Sergeant reported that the Council was working with the Police and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to offer triage and diversion.  The CAMHS presence in Police stations was being increased and extended and funding to progress this had been received from the Ministry of Justice.  Triage was already well established and part of best practice.  It was possible that it might be moved the Early Help in due course.

In answer to question regarding the Gangs Matrix, Ms Sergeant stated that the boroughs had no control regarding who was on it.  There were currently three young people of below the age of 18 from Haringey on the Matrix and the youngest of these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To receive an update on the financial performance relating to Corporate Plan Priority 1.                                                 (COVERING REPORT TO FOLLOW)

Paul Durrant, Senior Business Partner from Corporate Finance, reported that Period 5 for 2017/18 showed a projected overspend of £2.8 million.  The position was nevertheless an improvement in previous years.  Savings had not been made at the pace anticipated though and it was also a struggle to accommodate pressures on children’s social care.  There was a £1.4 million overspend in children’s placements and current ones were being reviewed.  There had not been the move to less expensive placements in the numbers that had been planned and unit costs were 10% higher than expected.  There had been a focus on the most expensive placements and the average of these had now gone down.  Period 6 was likely to show an improved picture. 

There had been a net £700k overspend on staffing.  This had been due to the costs of recruiting social workers and the fact that service was currently above establishment levels.  Efforts were being made to convert agency social workers to permanent Council contracts.  SEN transport had a projected overspend but savings were planned to be achieved through the introduction of single pick up points.   Savings were intended to be achieved in respite care through the adoption of a more consistent policy.  Although £1.4m had been saved so far, this was £3.1m short of savings targets.  There was a management plan that would aim to bridge this gap and the projected £2.8m overspend was a worst case scenario.

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) comprised three blocks of funding.  The high needs block showed a projected overspend of £1.34m and proposals on how this would be mitigated would be considered at the next meeting of the Schools Forum.  Any deficits would be carried forward so it needed to be addressed so that funding could be sustainable in the long term. 

Margaret Dennison, the Interim Director of Children’s Services, reported that the suitability and duration of the most expensive placements was being reviewed and benefits from this were already being seen.  However, there would always be a cohort of children and young people with exceptional needs.  The Cabinet Member for Children and Families reported that a letter had been written to the Secretary of State expressing concern at the lack of suitable residential placements, which limited the options available. 

In answer to a question regarding the use of agency social workers, Ms Dennison reported that there was an outline plan in place to address this issue and she was confident that more could be achieved.  The key issue was the context within which effective social work took place.   Haringey often lost social workers to competitor authorities that were better rated and could offer lower workloads.  It was not about money but providing a strong offer and improving the context.  The service was investing in a specific officer to address recruitment issues.  There were particular agency staff that Haringey needed to be looking to retain.  In addition, a more robust induction process needed to be developed.  The overall offer to staff needed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel’s proposed review on restorative justice commence on the completion on the current review on support to refugee children and that consideration be given to undertaking this in a “scrutiny in a day” format; and

2.    That, subject to the above, the work plan be approved.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None.