Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Erol Baduna.

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 15 September 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair advised that Item B2, Child Protection Annual Report, would be considered before Item B1, Alternative Provision: Witness Evidence.

None.

A member of the public queried if local schools were able to refer children to alternative provision as a means of improving their GCSE pass rates. The Executive Member confirmed that young people should be in mainstream schools as far as possible and the council only supported a referral to alternative provision when it was in the best interests of the child. It was commented that the reasons why children were referred to Alternative Provision would be explored as part of the scrutiny review.

Cathy Blair, Director of Targeted and Specialist Children’s Services, answered questions on the report which provided an update on the council’s safeguarding work. 

·         It was queried why some young people missing from care had not achieved good outcomes. In response it was advised that some of these young people had a history of offending and had entered the care system as older teenagers on remand in custody. It was noted that such young people were particularly difficult to stabilise.

·         Further to paragraph 4.7, the Committee queried the use of abduction notices. It was explained that such notices were served on adults who had exploitative and unhealthy relationships with missing children. Officers considered abduction notices to be a useful tool in disrupting inappropriate relationships.  

·         It was queried why officers believed the number of children missing from home was under-reported. It was suggested that parents did not always notify police when their child was missing, especially if this was a regular occurrence.

·         The Committee queried if the key performance indicators detailed at 5.3 were sufficiently oriented towards outcomes for children. It was advised that Children’s Services was also the subject of regular quality assurance audits which objectively measured performance and outcomes for children.

·         It was queried if the 45 days allowed for children in need assessments to be carried out was excessively long. Officers commented that 45 days was a reasonable standard, and whilst some assessments took a shorter time, some family circumstances were complicated and took much longer to assess.

·         The Committee noted that the council applied for court orders to protect children more often than most other boroughs and queried why this may be. It was explained that the high levels of deprivation in Islington, together with significant levels of domestic violence and substance abuse, meant that Islington had a relatively high number of children requiring protection and such orders were considered to be the best way to safeguard children. It was commented that the court almost always agreed with the authority’s judgement that the child was at risk of significant harm and required protection.

·         The Committee noted that the number of Looked After children who had to move more than three times during a year was comparable to the council’s statistical neighbours and queried if this was positive or not. In response it was advised that there was a shortage in foster carers, and although moving was disruptive for children it was often required to achieve the best outcomes.

·         The Committee noted that the council had started using secure accommodation orders to protect children from absconding for the first time in six years and queried the reasons for this. In response it was noted that such orders were often used to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation who required their liberty to be deprived to ensure their safety. It was emphasised that this was only used as a last resort and the council had to demonstrate to the court that the order was required and that no suitable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The Committee received evidence from two providers of Alternative Provision on the quality and range of local provision.

Anna Cain, Chief Executive and Head of the Boxing Academy, provided a summary of her work. A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

·         The Boxing Academy was based in Hackney and offered alternative education provision to pupils across North London at risk of exclusion due to violent or disruptive behaviour.

·         The Boxing Academy was a small provider with charitable status. The curriculum included a minimum of five GCSEs alongside boxing which improved the fitness and discipline of pupils. The Academy also offered PSHE and helped pupils to develop life skills such as employability. Intervention work on personal difficulties was offered after school hours. The majority of pupils passed their GCSEs.

·         Every pupil at the Academy had a personalised learning plan. There were only eight pupils per class, with each class having both a teacher and a support assistant. Some pupils attending the Boxing Academy had special educational needs and it was commented that Islington schools provided particularly good data to assist the Academy in this area.

·         The Academy originated in Tottenham and promoted an inclusive ‘family’ atmosphere which was particularly conducive for intervention work. It was suggested that many pupils struggled in traditional settings and had a low view of mainstream education. The different environment and focus on ‘tough love’ and team-work was thought to assist the pupils in their learning.

·         The Boxing Academy offered full time education. Pupils arrived at 9am for a 9.15am start and worked until 3pm. Those arriving late were subject to appropriate sanctions which could be either a physical challenge, such as push-ups, or a practical task such as washing up.

·         All pupils studied GCSE English, Maths, ICT, RE and PE. Pupils also received lessons on topical issues; the Academy had recently held a lesson on the Prevent strategy and democracy, and had also been visited by the Territorial Army and a barrister, who taught pupils about the legal system.

·         Pupils could arrive from 8am for a breakfast club. Pupils could stay at the Academy up to 4pm and after-school activities were provided regularly. 

·         A placement at the Academy cost £10,500 per year which included meals, school trips and uniforms. Transport was not usually provided however was considered in exceptional circumstances. Some pupils requiring support with attendance were collected from their homes by their mentors. 

·         The Academy had 40 pupils in total, including 18 Year 11s. 56% of the previous year’s cohort achieved a C or higher in maths, one pupil achieved an A. All pupils had passed GCSE PE.

·         The Academy had been approved to become an Alternative Provision free school and would soon be offering three additional GCSEs: science, a language, and a humanities subject.

·         It was noted that five of the 40 pupils were girls and these tended to perform best academically. The Academy welcomed both boys and girls however girls were rarely referred to the Academy due to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Councillor Joe Caluori, Executive Member for Children and Families, provided an update to the Committee on his recent work. The Committee noted the procedure for Executive Member questions set out in the agenda and questioned the Executive Member on the following topics:

·         Councillor Picknell queried how Islington Council assessed the risk of abuse posed to unaccompanied asylum seeking children both prior to their arrival in the borough, and once they arrived. In response Councillor Caluori advised that there were two methods through which asylum seeking children came to the borough; some were allocated to the borough from the national asylum seeking unit in Croydon; whereas others presented themselves to the council, sometimes with an adult or a solicitor advocating on their behalf. The council collected information on asylum seeking children, particularly to identify the journey taken into the country and to assess if they had been trafficked. The majority were placed in foster care and all children were entitled to the full range of services available to looked after children in the borough. It was commented that Islington had recently received a steady arrival of Albanian children, the reasons for which were not clear as the borough did not have a historic Albanian community. As a result Albanian boys aged 14 to 17 comprised around 10% of the in-care population. Officers had noted that some of these children had given identical accounts of how they had travelled to the country and why they were seeking asylum and there was a concern that they were being brought to the country for illegitimate purposes. It was known that asylum seekers were being exploited to commit crime in other areas; for example young women had been trafficked to work in the sex industry in Manchester, and there were instances elsewhere of young men being brought to the country and coerced into organised crime. It was not known why the Albanian asylum seekers were arriving in Islington as opposed to other London boroughs; however it was possible that Islington was considered to be a better option than other boroughs; or the proximity to the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras could also be a factor. It was noted that the council had supported lobbying of the Attorney General to release detailed national data on crime committed by asylum seekers as this could help to identify the workings of international criminal networks, however to date this request had been refused. The Executive Member expressed concern that asylum seeking children were able to present themselves to the council without prior detection by the UK Border Agency.

·         Councillor Picknell queried what evidence suggested that the Pause programme would become self-funding. In response, it was advised that the Pause programme estimated that if 100 women were spread over five sites over a five year period with no intervention, they could potentially have 264 children removed into care at a cost of almost £20million. In contrast, the cost of running the programme was £9million, making the potential saving greater than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

A discussion was had on the focus of the Alternative Provision review, in particular if sufficient emphasis was to be given to pupil referral units and the outcomes of students excluded from mainstream school. The Committee considered the witness evidence plan and agreed that the proposal to receive evidence from two head teachers and a representative of New River College would provide sufficient opportunity for the committee to consider matters relating to exclusions.

The Committee requested further data on the performance of alternative provision providers and the outcomes of pupils.