Ask for:Laura Shewfelt
Ext:25452
My ref:
Your ref:
CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND CORPORATE PARENTING CABINET PANEL
10 NOVEMBER2010
M I N U T E S
ATTENDANCE
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
N Bell, C M Hayward, D J Hewitt (Vice Chairman), M Hurst, S L C Johnston, B J Lamb, A Lee, S Markiewicz, C A Mitchell, L J Newlyn, J M Pitman (Chairman and Executive Member for Children’sServices), R G Prowse, R G Tindall (substitute for M Frearson)
Parent Governor Representative
S Milligan
Non-Voting Member
D Williams
Also in attendance:
N Betteley
Upon consideration of the agenda for the Children’s Services and Corporate Parenting Cabinet Panel meeting on 10 November2010as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below:
PART 1
ACTION1. / MINUTES
1.1 / The minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2010were confirmed as a correct record.
2. / PUBLIC PETITIONS
2.1 / There were no public petitions.
3. / PEER REVIEW OF SAFEGUARDING SERVICES AND OFSTED INSPECTION OF SAFEGUARDING AND CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER (CLA) SERVICES
(Officer Contact: J Coles: 01992 555755)
3.1 / Jenny Coles, Director of Safeguarding & Specialist Services,
presented the Panel with a report which summarised findings from the Local Government Improvement and Development Agency peer review of safeguarding arrangements in September commissioned by the Children, Schools and Families department. It also contained key headlines from the announced inspection by HMI Ofsted of Safeguarding and Children Looked After (CLA) Services which took place between 11 and 22 October 2010.
3.2 / The Safeguarding Peer Review process followed a similar one to the Ofsted Inspection framework and required the Department to provide documentation on services, self evaluation questionnaire, audit of direct work with children and families. The review team interviewed staff, partners and visited specific projects and schools and strengths were highlighted as:
- Supportive and ambitious council
- A shared belief that service was improving
- Leadership in safeguarding services
- Imaginative and creative solutions
- Good capacity to sustain momentum
- Committed front line workforce
- Good partnership working
3.3 / Areas for consideration were:
- Cultural identity
- Management development
- Further embed thresholds
3.4 / The full Ofsted Inspection report was expected to be published on 19 November 2010, however, initial findings had confirmed that children’s services were adequate and improving with robust strategies under the Children and Young People’s Plan and the Children’s Services Transformation. The lead inspector had reported that there had been significant improvements since the Joint Area review in 2007 and no area was judged to be inadequate.
3.5
3.6
3.7 / Once the final inspection report had been published an action plan would be developed to address areas identified for development and presented to this Panel.
Questions were invited and responded to and Members discussed the hugely successful Social Worker Academy. It was also noted that initial discussions had taken place with the NHS regarding the aligning of services between the two organisations.
In response to a question, the Director of Safeguarding & Specialist Services suggested that the Panel consider how to progress the further development of the Corporate Parenting aspect of the Panel’s work in order to link in with the HCTP multi agency subgroup for children in care and the Children In Care council.
3.8 / Conclusion
The Panel welcomed the significant improvements made in safeguarding services and commended all the staff involved. The Panel agreed with the recommendation to develop the corporate parenting model alongside the HCTP multi agency strategic group for CLA. It looked forward to continued improvement and progress.
4. / THE EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT OF CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER (CLA) AND CARE LEAVERS 2009/10
(Officer Contact: Felicity Evans(Tel: 01992 555926)
4.1 / The Panel received a report which provided a summary of the educational achievement of CLA and care leavers in 2009/10 at Foundation Stage, Key Stages 1-4 and in post-16 education. An encouraging improvement was reported in both attainment particularly at Key Stage 4 and school attendance in comparison with 2008/09.
4.2
4.3 / The report also provided details of the VirtualSchool for CLA in Hertfordshire and plans for its future development to support further improvement in the educational achievement of CLA. David Williams declared an interest in this item as his wife was involved in the VirtualSchool.
In response to a query, the Panel was informed that Key Stage 3 data was not available within the County Council and therefore was not included in the report. Members requested that in future updates, more information should be provided regarding the tracking of progress, not just that required by government targets. / Felicity Evans
4.4
4.5 / A suggestion that CountyCouncillors should be represented on the governing body of the VirtualSchool was welcomed and it was agreed that this should be progressed.
In response to a question, the Panel was reassured that all intervention programmes were rigorously monitored. The Panel also noted the success of Resilience Programme which was available for Year 6 CLA in preparation for the transition from primary to secondary school. It was suggested that a few children who had undertaken the programme might attend a future meeting of the Panel to talk about their experience. / Felicity Evans
Felicity Evans
4.6 / Conclusions
The Panel welcomedthe report detailing progress in attainment of children looked after and thanked all officers involved for the extremely encouraging improvements that had been made to date. The Panel requested some further information to be circulated regarding the VirtualSchool. / Felicity Evans
5. / IMPROVING EARLY INTERVENTION AND TARGETED SERVICES THROUGH A LOCAL SERVICE DELIVERY PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK
(Officer Contact: David Ring(Tel:01442453012)
5.1 / The Panel received a report updating it on proposals for improving the delivery of early intervention and targeted services through the Local Service Delivery Partnership (LSDP) framework. It also provided information on the outcome of consultation on the configuration of LSDPs.
5.2 / It had been decided to proceed with 23 LSDP areas, which were largely aligned with the 10 district council boundaries and were completely coterminous with the 82 children’s centre areas. Further consideration on the potential of LSDPs as a key mechanism for the delivery of children’s services in local communities had led to the alignment of the LSDP work with the development of actual multi agency teams, named Integrated Targeted Services (ITS) teams which would deliver targeted support to children and families in the localities. Work had been undertaken to develop more detailed case pathways and organisational models for the ITS teams, which now formed the basis for a wide consultation with stakeholders.
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6 / The Panel noted that the consultation period ran from 1 October 2010 until 31 December 2010 and that a series of 10 consultation sessions were being held across the county to enable schools, children’s centres and other members of the children’s workforce to hear about the proposals. It was expected that the specification would be finalised in January 2011 and appointments completed by May 2011. It was intended that the ITS teams would be in place using the LSDP framework by September 2011.
Members were informed of the financial implications and noted that in the longer term, implementing the proposals would reduce the costs involved in meeting the needs of children and young people by reducing the number of children and young people who required expensive and long term specialist services because their needs had not been met appropriately earlier.
Questions were invited and responded to and the Panel discussed the challenges around how far schools and other universal services would be willing to sign up to a partnership and community based arrangement. In terms of making the required efficiency savings of £618k, members were reassured that these would not come from front line services that dealt directly with families.
In response to a question, it was confirmed that discussions were taking place with the Hertfordshire Community Health Service regarding the alignment of services such as school nurses and health visitors, however this would take time. It was also noted that, in the longer term, discussions would need to take place regarding the role that councillors would take in the LSDPs.
5.7 / Conclusions
The Panel welcomed the report and requested that it be updated on progress in early 2011. / David Ring
6. / REVIEW OF CHILD, ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (CAMHS) PROGRESS REPORT
(Officer Contact: Frances Coupe(Tel:01992555815)
6.1 / The Panel received a report informing it of progress made with the Children’s Services Transformation (CST) review of Child, Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) which is being taken forward by the CAMHS Commissioning Group. Proposed improvements included a specific focus on CAMHS services for Children Looked After (CLA).
6.2
6.3
6.4 / Members noted that CAMHS were funded by a pooled budget with NHS Hertfordshire with a total value of £14,124,370 for 2010/2011. CSF contributed £2,309,242 to this pooled budget and it was this contribution that was being reviewed. It was made up of the following income streams:
- Area based grants
- HCC base budget (social workers)
It was noted that good progress was being made in reviewing and commissioning CAMHS services to meet the emotional wellbeing and mental health needs of children and young people in Hertfordshire. The review would achieve a saving of £687,000 over the period 2011-14. / Frances Coupe
6.5 / Conclusions
The Panel fully supported the review of commissioning mental health services for children and noted the report.
Kathryn Pettit
Chief Legal Officer