Agenda item

Members welcomed Ross Adams, Chance UK and Shareen Connolly, Safer London Aspire and some young people taking part in the scheme, to the meeting.

During consideration of the evidence the following main points were raised –

·         Safer London Aspire is a mentoring project for 11-18 year old young people at risk of involvement in ASB, offending and gangs

·         Members were informed of the activities that the mentors took part in with the young children and the scheme tried to ensure that mentors chosen to work with children had similar interests

·         Mentors met with children regularly and at present there were 27 active mentors and 52 on the database. In future they were looking to identify more categories of mentors and interviews after application took place and assessments and if these were successful mentors would then attend a 3 day intensive training course and then final suitability is assessed

·         In response to a question it was stated that the scheme did have sufficient applications for mentors and that most of the children referred tended to come through referrals from Families First, youth offending etc.

·         Safer Aspire stated that ideally they would like to extend the service to more young people and to recruit more mentors and train them more intensely

·         The view was expressed that it was felt that there is a need for more early intervention and more input from schools

·         In response to a question it was stated that mentors were allowed £20 per week to spend on activities per child, however it is often difficult to get children into sporting clubs. There is currently MOPAC funding for early intervention for 11-17 year olds

·         The MOPAC funding was initially for a 2 year period and this has been extended for a further 2 years until 2017, however following this funding is uncertain but there is a commitment for it to continue in some form. Councillor Convery stated that in his discussions with MOPAC about youth crime in the borough he felt that funding would continue and the monies would be concentrated on youth crime and Domestic Violence

·         The young children present stated that they felt additional funding would be beneficial given the cost of activities. Members stated that they wished the children success in the scheme and in future

·         Chance UK provides an early intervention programme for 5-11 year olds through intensive mentoring and family support

·         Referrals mostly came from the child’s school and would be in relation to concerns about mental health, hyperactivity, peer pressure etc. and work would be carried out with the child and the family and there were high instances of parents who suffered from depression and anxiety, from Domestic Violence etc.

·         The results of Chance UK were consistently good and 85%-95% of children when graduating from the service had improved behaviour and 75% had improved social care and relationships with their families

·         Chance UK services were able to be externally evaluated

·         Members expressed the view that Chance UK did excellent work and that the work helped to improve families lives and that it would be useful if some anonymised case studies could be circulated to Members

·         In response to a question as to whether it was felt that there had been an increase in poverty and this was a factor, it was stated that in the previous year families were being affected by the welfare changes

·         It was stated that the approach had changed over recent years from telling someone how they were going to be helped to a more targeted approach to assist the child/family concerned as to what would assist them the best in accessing appropriate services

·         In response to a questions as to whether the Council could do more to offer more continuing support for families at the end of the programme it was stated that there is a need to plan expectations and Chance UK looked at the activities and legacy that could be put in place to continue progress, such as sports and social clubs, school activities, out of school activities and small scale projects

·         In response to a question as to what the Council could do to continue the work that Chance UK had done once it had finished and if it continued to monitor progress, Chance UK stated that they linked in with Families First to give them information as to possible sources of funding to access and that in terms of Council initiatives there were bits of funding across London that could be accessed in order to assist based on the needs of the child

·         It was stated that one of the recommendations of the Children’s Services scrutiny committee on a scrutiny review that they carried out in relation to

Early Help made a recommendation relating to funding and that this could be looked at

·         A Member expressed the view that the lack of playspace in the borough was a problem and Chance UK stated that this is challenging and that often facilities outside the vicinity needed to be accessed

·         Chance UK stated that it is important to build trust with the children and assess their coping skills and if there is an immediate risk to the child and get them access to help. However, it is often difficult to get parents to access a GP and counselling but there is an ongoing dialogue with parents about how things were progressing

·         In response to a question as to whether children were tracked to see if they achieved academically or went to University after interventions by Chance UK it was stated that it is too expensive for Chance UK to be able to do this, however it is felt that there is more collectively that could be done to assess how families were progressing but there is evidence to show that following intervention children were re-engaging with school and education

·         The view was expressed that the Council needed to look to discuss with schools and its Leisure Services provider the use of facilities and get them to assist in enabling organisations such as Chance UK and young people to access facilities outside school hours at a low cost

·         In response to a question as to whether the tracking of outcomes is feasible it was stated that this would involve a great deal of resources but this could be subject of further discussion, as if outcomes could be shown to have improved an economic case could be made for early intervention and work of this nature. Councillor Convery expressed the view that even if it is shown that there is a saving to the Government from these schemes it is not guaranteed that the monies saved would be reimbursed to Councils

·         Reference was made to the recent visit to the PRU and that Members had been informed that the cohort of young people admitted had changed and there were more girls going to the PRU

·         Chance UK stated that they now had a girls programme, which involved 10 Islington and 10 Hackney girls, however this programme is still being developed and needed to be developed. The programme also deals with child sexual exploitation and Chance UK stated that schools were  a good place to start to develop a good picture of the child and the family

The Chair thanked Chance UK and Safer Aspire London and the young people for attending and that they would welcome any views on the scrutiny recommendations when they were prepared.

The Chair also thanked Councillor Convery for attending