Verbal update
Minutes:
The Panel received a short verbal update from the Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families on developments within her portfolio. The Cabinet Member then undertook a question and answer session with the Panel. The following key points were noted in relation to the verbal update:
· The Cabinet Member set out that the overspend position within the service of less than £1m was significant but was on an improving trajectory and it was hoped this position would improve further.
· The service launched the Early Years Strategy last week.
· A key development was around the government increasing amount allocated for each two-year old from £6 per hour to £9 per hour
· The government was looking to expand 15 hours of free nursery for children from 9 months old from September 2025. Early Years was going to be an increasingly key service in that context.
· Haringey had launched its first family hub, with a commitment to launch a further 3 hubs using the £3.8m funding allocation over 3 years from the government.
· The Turnaround project at Woodside High was underway. This is an early intervention scheme and links up with the very successful programme of having social workers in schools.
· The Cabinet Member advised that Ann Graham and her team were up for a national award for social workers in schools. The ceremony was on 23rd November.
· 97% of Haringey schools were Ofsted rated good or outstanding.
· The Cabinet Member set out that there had been a meeting with school governors to push the Council to take a greater role in working with schools around issues such as governance, school finance, safeguarding and cyber security.
· There was also an event with parents/carers and Council representatives, around housing and children with special educational needs.
The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:
a. The Panel welcomed the portfolio update from the Cabinet Member and some of the positive news contained therein.
b. The Panel sought clarification around the Council’s policy to offer Council tax reduction to care leavers up to the age of 25 and whether there were reciprocal arrangements in place for Haringey care leavers who lived in other boroughs to receive a reduction. The Panel advocated that the Council should be lobbying for this to happen. In response, the Panel was advised that the lobbying for this had been led by the London Directors of Children’s Services, who were pushing London boroughs to have a joint approach, which included reciprocal arrangements around council tax discounts. Other authorities outside of London were facing pressure to also offer something similar.
c. The Panel sought clarification about the extent to which there was a social worker in every school. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that there was not enough money to do this for every school. Secondary schools had access to a social worker in schools and that this was jointly funded by the government, the Council and the schools themselves. Officers set out that every school had a dedicated safeguarding lead and that the safeguarding partnership board could undertake visits and offer advice if schools requested it.
d. The Panel relayed concerns from primary schools, that they found it difficult to contact social workers. In response officers asked members to pass on the details of these conversations and advised that their needed to be clear lines of communication with schools. Officers advised that there had been a realignment of family support services into three localities, each with a cluster of schools. There were nominated leads for each cluster and key information had been shared with them about management structure and who to contact. Officers clarified that there were 64 primary and early years settings in the borough, and the Council had a firm relationship with 58 of them. Of the 18 schools in the borough, the local authority had a firm relationship with 15 of these.
e. In response to a question about recent world events and the impact on children, the Cabinet Member advised that the DfE wrote to all schools on this matter and this was followed up by a letter from the Council, setting out what was being done to support schools, to promote the Council’s values around diversity, and to support schools to be impartial. A number of resources had been provided to schools and the Cabinet Member recently attended a model lesson given to Hornsey School for Girls on this issue.
f. In regards to a follow-up question around whether there was any trauma informed work taking place in schools, especially given the access children had to graphic imagery through social media. In response, the Panel was advised that the only way for the authority to know about specific cases was through a referral. There was an education psychology service available to schools upon request. Officers also highlighted the Anchor approach, which was trauma informed training offered by the Council, which had been in place for a number of years. Assurances were given that using the right language in schools had been deeply embedded.
g. The Panel sought clarification about the disability facilities grant and further information about eligibility and confirmation it was available to Council tenants. In response, Panel members were advised that it was managed by Adult Social Services as it was not a child specific grant, although children were eligible. Officers set out that the funding was provided by central government. Council tenants were eligible but problems existed around the length of time it took to get a resolution as it required an inspection by a surveyor. The Cabinet Member advised that she would like to have a paediatric occupational therapy specialist within Children’s Services.
h. A co-opted member of the Panel emphasised some of the terrible housing conditions that came to light during the meeting around housing and children with SEND. It was noted that some families had been waiting years.
i. In relation to eligibility for the dedicated facilities grant, officers advised that it was available to home-owners, as well as tenants or landlords. The person had to reside in the property for the life-time of the grant that was awarded. It was a means-tested benefit for adults, but that didn’t apply to children under 19 years of age. Within the SEND pages of the website, this information was available to residents.
j. The Panel requested a written update on how decisions are made on disabled facilities grants, how child specific needs were supported and the split between children and adults in these grants. (Action: Clerk).
RESOLVED
Noted