Return to Agenda
ITEM CH3
CHILDREN’S SERVICES SCRUTINY committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 28 October 2008 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 12.20 pm.
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Ann Bonner - in the chair
Councillor Marilyn Badcock Councillor Nick Carter Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor Councillor Jean Fooks Councillor Sue Haffenden Councillor Pete Handley Councillor Steve Hayward Councillor David Nimmo-Smith Councillor Larry Sanders (in place of Councillor Deborah Glass Woodin) Councillor Val Smith Councillor David Turner Councillor Carol Viney
Mr Chris Bevan Mrs Sue Matthew
Officers:
Whole of meeting: J. Dean (Corporate Core).
Part of meeting:
The Scrutiny Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting and agreed as set out below. Copies of the agenda and reports are attached to the signed Minutes.
110/08 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
111/08 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23 September 2008 were approved and signed.
Minute 104/08 – JAR Report and Action Plan – page 5, bullet point 3 – In response to a question relating to the future existence of Key Stage 3 testing, Mike Simm expressed the view that the results would still be put in the public domain, but they may not be recognised with the same degree of credibility as they were formerly. Mike Simm undertook also to inform members as to whether the diplomas had gone through the gateway.
112/08 YOUTH SERVICE PRESENTATION (Agenda Item 5)
At its Meeting on 23 September 2008, this Committee agreed to undertake an initial investigation into the work of the Youth Service. The aim of this exercise was to enable the Committee to review this area with a view to identifying any future work for its Work Programme.
Ms Tan Lea, Strategic Lead, Youth, attended the meeting in order to give an overview of the current work of the Youth Service including an update on staffing, budget activities and future plans for the youth service in the context of the wider Integrated Youth Support Services. The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families was also present to answer any questions from the Committee relating to this area of work.
Questions put to Ms Lea and Councillor Chapman and responses received, included the following:
Q How are you targeting your resources? Many groups are in competition with each other R (Tan Lea) We are currently doing an audit of demographic need and of staffing levels. We are looking to weighting the system to take account of any need that the review reveals. The outcomes may be as the situation is now, or we may take another look. We will be taking rural weighting into account and looking at that work. Q How do you still make it fun? Do you still access the ‘Big Idea’ funding? R (Tan Lea) I have spent some time going round a range of centres across the county looking at the activities they offer and projects underway and I have been impressed at what I have seen. Amongst these were many music activities and youths practicing their DJ skills, a graffiti project (which the Centre were fund-raising for) and gym/dance activities. The young people themselves identify their own activities. Our way of working is to ensure that communities feel more confident about young people and that they have a ‘more normalised’ place within the community.
The ‘Big Idea’ projects, such as camping holidays, do take place but they are dependent upon acquiring external funding. Fund raising is also an additional part of the activities. Local town councils and parish council area committees have been approached by the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families to contribute to a ‘Chill Out’ fund. With area committee assistance, young people have been able to attend one-off events. The young people make the application themselves.
Q Youth Councils appear to be very important – have they proved to be a good thing? R (Cllr Chapman) Youth Councils have been very good news for young people. The Children’s Trust are in the early stages of setting up a Youth Partnership and it is hoped that it will be up and running in the new year. Funding has been found and staff are now in post to help young people to run it. It has been agreed at the last Children’s Trust meeting that all secondary schools could be involved. There is also a Youth Forum in place, funded by the Youth Opportunity projects. The young people themselves make their own decisions about which activities they wish to commission. The JAR outcomes relating to how we involve young people in decisions about their services were outstanding for Oxfordshire. This does not mean, however, that we could not do more.
Q Don’t youths need their own shelter where they can congregate with their friends, which is situated away from their school premises, a place where they are sheltered from the weather and is well lit? R (Cllr Chapman) Yes, they do need a shelter. The Chill Out monies helped to fund some, and there are different pots of money to pay for them, but the district /town /parish councils need to take the lead in running them.
Q Are you monitoring and recording the benefits to young people that your service gives? R (Tan Lea) We have not been as clear to date as we might have been. Currently lead management is looking at performance management and quality across the piste. We do receive data on specific activities undertaken, particularly when accreditation is related to numbers. However, we need a mechanism to allow us to look at vulnerability, for example, if they have exhibited anti-social behaviour in the past. We are looking to starting pilots to improve recording in the north, south and centre of the county. They will take some time to roll out. Q You mention that you are interested in making some of the youth centres which we own fit for purpose, and in week-end opening, what do you plan to do about the lack of public transport in rural areas? R (Tan Lea) We recognise the issues surrounding transport access to provision. We would look to targeting the majority of the work in areas where there is the highest need and also in areas where there is the strongest support. There are no easy answers to this issue and we need to give it more thought. To date we are looking to the Youth Opportunities and the Chill Out funds but we are also seeking other opportunities.
Q You have not mentioned the biggest problem which is getting trained youth officers. What is your view on this? R (Tan Lea) We are aware of the situation. The issue we need to be looking at is how we can seek and encourage volunteers and a wider group of people to support the service.
Q Are you looking at locality working with other partners? R (Tan Lea) Our partners in the Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust and the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Healthcare Foundation Trust are very keen. They are key partners in the development of the Children’s Trust and locality working. We are talking to colleagues about how to include younger children within the remit for extended school working.
Q If you had £2m to spend, what would you wish to spend it on? R We would like to deliver a strategy for week-end opening of youth centres and to improve the quality of the buildings.
Q Youths always seem to get a raw deal in comparison with children in terms of facilities. Do you think that they should be more involved in consultation? R (Cllr Chapman) This is down to local decision making by parish and town councils. It is down to elected members to convince the public that more facilities are needed for them. There are various pots of funding for this. We can assist, but it needs somebody to champion their cause.
Q How do you encourage District Councils and the County Council to work together doing outreach? How do you decide how many are needed in each district and what they will do? R (Tan Lea) Outreach work is a core part of the youth worker’s job – there are no separate outreach workers. We work with the data analysts in Oxfordshire County Council to develop a matrix of the areas where, for example, there is a higher incidence of teenage pregnancies and young people not in work. There are various sorts of data which are looked at and we are coming up with different ways of monitoring the data and different ways of taking it further.
Q Does the countywide Strategic Review include what is being done in schools, in order to avoid any duplication, in light of the limited resources available? R (Tan Lea) The scope of the review is quite narrow. The Youth Service has a limited budget and therefore provision has to match with demographic needs. We are working with schools and other services to ensure that it is supplemented. As a starting point we must ask ourselves if we are making use of the resources we have.
Q Why have we suddenly doubled the target age range, branding those aged 8 – 13 as youths when they are not? Why don’t we target the 11-19 year olds? R (Tan Lea) Historically, youth support services have clearly defined those aged 13 – 19 as users of the services, but, in fact, other areas/centres were also working with the younger ones. We as a Council never defined it as such. We decided that we needed a clear rational – we know that it is much harder to engage with a youth aged 13 than it is with a younger person. It is easier to establish a relationship early and indeed, to legitimise a consistent approach to the label ’Children & Young People’.
Q What criteria do you apply when using the term ‘Centre for Excellence’? R (Tan Lea) We are working with Planning on a good design with regard to appropriate signage and facilities. In my view Centres of Excellence are a long way from the aspiration of ‘good enough’.
Cllr Chapman commented that welcomed the expansion of the age range. If we want to increase involvement in the service, then we must engage them at a younger age. We are providing integrated youth support, not a youth service. We are not, however, diluting the service, we are making use of the partner agencies where possible in order to make a difference. I accept that we may need to change the tern ‘Centre of Excellence’ to reflect the change in approach.
Following the question and answer session, the Committee thanked Tan Lea and Councillor Chapman for attending for attending and for their valuable input. Members welcomed the work being carried out by the Directorate on a comprehensive audit of demographic need and staffing levels in the Youth Service, and asked Tan Lea to return to a future meeting so that the Committee could examine the outcomes of this exercise, together with actions to be taken.
113/08 PROGRESS UPDATE FROM TASK GROUP: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIORITIES FROM THE REVIEW OF YEAR ONE OF THE CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE’S PLAN (Agenda item 6)
Just over a year ago a Member Task Group had began to scrutinise the implementation of priorities of the Children & Young People’s Plan, following a review of its first year which had been undertaken in June 2007 by the Children, Young People & Families Directorate.
At the outset of the work, the Task Group did not envisage that a substantive report with recommendations to the Cabinet would be produced. The purpose of the exercise was simply to track progress in the second year of the Plan based on key issues arising from year one. This involved an assessment of the review of the first year, of the priorities that were identified there, what the review of the Plan was seeking to achieve within those priorities and what had actually been achieved.
The Task Group had identified the proposed priorities chosen for Year 2 of the Plan and areas for further development shortly afterwards and then set about addressing these. During the course of its early activities, Members focused particularly on the following themes: locality and inter-agency working, the “Sounding Board”, teenage conception rates and mental and emotional health. In doing so Members interviewed and received a presentation at the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee from Paul Sheffield on PCAMHS (Primary Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services) and interviewed Andy Couldrick, Head of Service, Early Years & Family Support.
At the next stage, stemming from discussions at the Committee, the group focused on the development of Locality working and in particular, the Common Assessment Framework and Team Around the Child. Members visited Didcot to observe how the new Locality Framework was operating in practice and balanced its findings with observations from a second Locality visit to Headington/Wheatley and further scrutiny on the development of PCAMHS. A report from the Task Group was attached at CH6.
This item had been included on the agenda to enable the Committee to have the opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families and the Head of Commissioning, Strategy and Locality Development on these issues with a view to bringing the activities of the Task Group to a close. Members of the Committee were asked to consider areas for questioning reflected in the report (CH6) including the Task Group’s analysis and identification of areas for further development.
A panel was formed to enable a question and answer session. Councillor Chapman was joined by Paul Sheffield, PCAMHS Service Manager, Maria Godfrey, Service Manager (Locality Working & Integrated Support Services), Mike Simm, Head of Commissioning, Strategy & Locality, and Alexandra Bailey, Senior Policy Manager. Questions asked and responses given, included the following:
Q How do you see this piece of work going forward? R (Mike Simm) That is for you to decide as a Committee.
Q With regard to paragraph 23 of the report, do you feel that the 6 week intervention from PCAMHS is not long enough? R (Mike Simm) We have invested in, and are developing, an early intervention service which should be in operation in 6 months time. This will focus on providing an early response and will create a bridge between the current PCAMHS service and Children’s Social Service.
Paul Sheffield, the Project Lead for this new intervention, commented that it would be tailored to what children and families want, and activities would be co-ordinated with the schools. It is our view that the schools will be the primary responders to this service.
Q Will this service extend into the Foundation Stage, or will it be purely statutory age? R (Paul Sheffield) The service will be aimed at ages 0 to 19.
Q It is noted that the Locality working does not fit with the School Partnership working. What is your view on this? R (Mike Simm) There are 26 School Partnerships and 13 Localities. It has been recognised that as we develop our services, then we will need to increase this particular focus.
Maria Godfrey reported that they were doing some work with area management groups who each had responsibility for a particular area. Headteachers and children from each partnership had been invited to engage in the debate.
Q If the age range is to be 0 – 19 will the service be all the year round and not just during the school term-time? R (Paul Sheffield) It will be in operation 52 weeks of the year and will be very similar to the PCAMHS model.
Q CAF requires parental agreement – how will you be able to circumvent this when you see the need for assistance? R (Maria Godfrey) This is about early intervention. As soon as a problem is identified, then CAF moves in. However, this is about cultural change. We have been asked in the past ‘where were you 5 years ago?’ There will be no problem now, there will be greater engagement with, and better relationship development with parents and carers. It will also be about how we engage with more difficult cases. It will be the role of the Locality Co-ordinator to look at gaps in resource, identify patterns and take them forward.
Paul Sheffield commented that currently we work with 1,300 children each year and we have to ration out the service. This new service will allow us to be more flexible and will also allow us to do more work over a sustained period.
Q Won’t you have two sets of officers doing the Healthy Schools Programme at the same time? R (Mike Simm) We operate in a set of tiers. The Health Schools Programme connects universally with schools, with schools trying to engender a whole set of messages. There is, at present, no activities focussed on those children where there is more need, and more comprehensive coverage is required for children and their families. There will be a three stage approach focussing on the schools generally, (first stage), PCAMHS (second stage) and Children’s Social Care (third stage). The mode will be around local delivery and the use of a whole range of resources.
Q People appear to be far more open about talking openly about any problems they might have. Ho will you reach the parent who remains unmotivated? R (Paul Sheffield) Parents who are not motivated usually have a good reason for this, such as mental health difficulties, family break down, or they might be struggling with personal issues. This new project will enable us to work with families and with the children alongside. Notwithstanding the above, there will still be a hard core of families mistrusting the system. We will try to engage with them and, of course, Safeguarding services will function as usual.
Q What about GP co-operation? R (Paul Sheffield) The majority of referrals (two thirds) are from GPs and a third from schools. We would like to see this reversed. We need to engage with the schools to inform them that they will be able to access the services direct. This communication will be ongoing. When we launch the intervention teams we will raise our profile with the appropriate parties.
Maria Godfey informed the Committee that a lot of work was being done in this field already. There were 2 pathfinder projects currently in operation to help schools to identify who the vulnerable children are , and how to engage with them.
Following the question and answer session, the Committee thanked the members of the Task Group and Julian Hehir, Policy & Review Officer for all their hard work in bringing this report into fruition. They also thanked Mike Simm, Maria Godfrey and Paul Sheffield for attending the meeting and for their valuable input.
114/08 SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda item 7)
The Committee had before them an update on the Committee’s work programme (CH7) and were given a progress report in relation to the Education Attainment Scrutiny Review.
115/08 TRACKING SCRUTINY ITEMS (Agenda Item 8)
The Committee noted the following:
On 25 September 2008, the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee considered this Committee’s advice on the Establishment Review and agreed to:
· note the responses and thank those scrutiny committees which had considered the report; and · ask the head of HR&OD to bring to this Committee three times a year (for example in May, September & December) data on key trends (the nature of which to be determined in consultation with the Chairman).
(Note: the Committee expressed an interest in schools’ data, for information.)
116/08 FORWARD PLAN (Agenda item 9)
No items were identified.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2008
|