Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Erol Baduna and Councillor Nick Ward (for lateness).

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a) Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b)  Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f)   Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

None.

None.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2015 be confirmed and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

None.

None.

The Chair outlined the procedure for public questions and the filming and recording of meetings.

The Committee received evidence from Stella Clarke, Programme Director for Preventative Services; Marcella McHugh, Delivery Lead for Multi-Agency Team 1; and Geraldine Abrahams, Delivery Lead for Multi-Agency Team 2 from the London Borough of Lambeth, during which the following main points were made –

·         Lambeth’s early help offering focused on families with children aged five to nineteen years.

·         Lambeth had adopted a multi-agency approach to early intervention which included integration with health services, schools and special educational needs services.

·         Lambeth’s early help service was delivered by two multi-agency teams on a locality basis and had supported 470 families in the previous year.

·         The service had strong relationships with statutory services with a clear step-up and step-down procedure. In the first three quarters of 2014/15, 174 families had stepped down from statutory to early help services, and 44 families stepped up from early help to statutory services.

·         Multi-agency teams conducted regular visits to service user homes.

·         Parenting programmes were provided at community venues through the service.

·         Lambeth’s service was consent based and had taken a motivational ‘life coaching’ approach to early help which officers considered to be successful.

·         It was noted that the problems faced by families in Lambeth included children and adults with disabilities, children at risk of sexual exploitation, difficulties with housing and benefits, domestic violence, substance abuse, young people classified as NEET, gang violence and children at risk of exclusion.

·         Lambeth had sought to improve its service by investing in workforce development.

·         The performance of Lambeth’s service was managed through the ‘Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Outcome Framework’ which measured performance against indicators set out in Lambeth’s early help strategy. It was noted that these indicators were generally broader societal measures, such as reductions in young people classified as NEET and teenage pregnancy. Lambeth also assessed performance by reviewing the outcomes of individual cases.

·         Lambeth was working to further integrate its early help service with its ‘Troubled Families’ programme. In doing this, Lambeth was considering the skills mix of its staff and case acceptance thresholds. It was considered that integrating the services would make the best use of the available resources.

·         Lambeth was seeking to make its service more efficient by working further with schools and children’s centres to identify and minimise duplication of services.

·         Families could be referred to Lambeth’s service by health visitors, schools, children’s centres and other agencies. Families were able to self-refer to the service, however an assessment was carried out before self-referrals were accepted.

·         A member queried how Lambeth knew if its service was effective. It was advised that, as well as measuring performance indicators, the service was also subject to external assessment and member scrutiny. The service had also recently introduced exit interviews for service leavers. However, it was noted that it was not possible to gauge how many families would otherwise have been referred to statutory services without support from the early help service.

·         It was queried how Lambeth ensured that the service was accessible to local people. It was advised that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The Committee considered the notes of recent site visits carried out as part of the early help scrutiny and the additional documents requested by members on those visits.

A debate was had in which the following main points were made –

·         Further consideration needed to be given as to how the Council measured the success of early help services. It was suggested that the Committee had a role in shaping a vision of success for such services.

·         It was commented that all of the parents interviewed had spoken positively of the Council’s early help services, which contrasted to the negative experiences some parents had with social services.

·         Many of the parents interviewed praised the services for being supportive and listening to their concerns. Although this was welcomed by the Committee, it was considered that the Committee must be careful not to conflate the service’s popularity with its achievement of results. Although the Committee was pleased by the praise received for the services, the difficulty of measuring the outcomes of early help services was recognised.

·         It was noted that many of the parents interviewed indicated that they would make use of a peer-to-peer support group alongside early help services. It was suggested that such a group would help with social isolation and building community resilience. It was also recognised that such a group would be relatively inexpensive to administer.

·         It was noted that few of the parents interviewed had knowledge of the Council’s early help services before their referral and it was suggested that further outreach work may be required. The implementation of a buddying or ‘community champion’ scheme was suggested.

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the meeting be confirmed.

The Committee received a presentation from Joe Caluori, Executive Member for Children and Families, on the work and performance of Children’s Services, copy interleaved, during which the following main points were made –

·         It was recognised that, although there had been an improvement in children’s phonics in Year 1, further work was needed to secure significant improvements.

·         Six out of ten young people in Islington achieved more than five A*-C grade GCSEs including English and Maths at age 16. The Executive Member advised that the authority was working to improve this statistic.

·         Two secondary schools had recently changed leadership and the Executive Member hoped that this would lead to significant improvements.

·         It was welcomed that 69% of children attending primary schools in Islington stay in the Borough for secondary education, however the Executive Member advised that further work was needed to improve the attractiveness of Islington schools to prospective pupils and parents. 

·         It was explained that although there were sufficient school places for children in Islington, parents often wished to choose the school their child attended and this was not always possible. It was commented that some parents objected to their child not attending their nearest school, however it was suggested that the relatively short distances that Islington children had to travel to school would be considered acceptable in other major cities in the world.

·         The Executive Member was keen to make capital investments in good and outstanding schools to increase the number of available places.

·         The problem of school attendance was highlighted; one in thirteen children missed one day of school per fortnight. It was suggested that schools could better integrate their attendance strategies to deal with this issue.

·         The Executive Member considered that too many children were in alternative provision and expressed concern that this often led to unsatisfactory outcomes for children. It was explained that attainment was higher in traditional education settings, however it was equally recognised that keeping children in schools which were not suitable for them was not appropriate. It was suggested that young people in alternative provision needed a clear vision of how their life would develop and the Committee was invited to consider this matter further.

·         A member raised that children in alternative provision often had complex needs and may come from families with substance abuse or medical issues. The Executive Member clarified that he understood the difficult situation faced by providers of alternative provision; however it was not acceptable that 41% of young offenders had previously been in alternative provision.

·         It was queried why four out of ten pupils were not achieving five A*-C grade GCSEs including English and Maths at age 16. The Executive Member explained that there was no straightforward answer however contributing factors could include overcrowded housing and limited access to ICT at home. 

·         Reference was made to the presentation made by the Director of Schools and Young People’s Services at the previous meeting, in which it was suggested that students with low levels of attainment were best supported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Noted.