Agenda and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from the following Members of the Commission:

?  James Peters (Councillor)

?  Katie Hanson (Councillor)

?  Clare Potter (Councillor)

?  Jane Heffernan (Co-optee)

?  Ernell Watson (Co-optee)

2.1 There were no new or urgent items and the agenda was as published. 

3.1 Cllr Ajay Chauhan declared that he worked as a teacher and was a member of the National Union of Teachers but this was not a prejudicial interest.

3.2 Co-optee Michael Lobenstein declared that he is a representative of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregation. This was not a prejudicial interest.

4.1  The Chair thanked the officers for Hackney Learning Trust for the comprehensive response to the investigation into Unregistered Settings in Hackney.

4.2  The Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Children's Social Care, Education and Young People told the Commission that she, the Mayor and officers welcomed the Children and Young People Scrutiny Commissions investigation. It was noted that the investigation had brought to light all the work of officers and political leaders that had gone on in the background to address the issues identified by the Scrutiny Commission. Further, the investigation had provided a time to pause and reflect, and for the Council to set out a clear strategy for engaging with unregistered settings around safeguarding and educational expectations.

4.3 The Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Children's Social Care, Education and Young People thanked the Charedi Orthodox Jewish community for their input and pointed out that unless there are legislative changes councils will continue to find it very difficult to intervene in unregistered settings to ensure children are safe. Therefore it remains essential that she, as the Deputy Mayor, continues to lobby the Government for a change in legislation.

Questions and answers

4.4 The Chair wanted the officers in attendance  to  expand on which Local Authorities they had meet with, what the learning had been so far and what the commonalities/differences were in their approaches compared to Hackney’s. In response the Group Director of Children, Adults & Community Health made the following substantive points:

• The Local Government Association (LGA) and Hackney co-hosted a conference on unregistered educational settings in June which was attended by local authorities from across the country. Most of them, without characterisation, when talking about unregistered educational settings refer to other and disparate religious faiths in comparison to Hackney where we are dealing with one particular faith. Further, it was noted that it was hard to draw out commonalities and differences due to the vast range of faiths and the disparity of settings, across the different local authorities that attended the conference. However, it was noted that there was good local authority interface across the board.
• As a part of some explorative work with Department of Education (DfE), 5-6 local authorities in London, including Hackney, are discussing how in partnership they can best support unregistered educational settings in moving into the regulative framework as well as exploring how and in what way this task can best be carried out. It was noted that although all the local authorities have the same end in sight they all have their own complexities to work with locally.
• Salford and Gateshead are the two local authorities that work with unregistered settings that most resemble those in Hackney.

4.5 The Commission wanted to know whether it is only in Hackney where it appears to be mainly an issue within the Orthodox Jewish Community or whether this is reflected elsewhere. In response, the Group Director of Children, Adults & Community Health, the Deputy Mayor and the Assistant Director Education Services made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1 The Chair explained to the members that last year the Commission carried out a review of recruitment and support to foster carers. This was in light of the difficulties around recruiting in-house foster carers culminating in having to rely on independent fostering agencies to provide foster carers with a greater cost to the service.  The objective for the review was to identify and assess the challenges which impede the recruitment and retention of foster carers in Hackney and to identify those policies and practices which can help to overcome them.

5.2 It was noted that the Commission had asked for an officer to attend the meeting in order to provide more information on the progress of recommendation 2 and 3 in the Executive response in regards to the foster carer recruitment strategy and the pilot of offering larger properties to experienced foster carers.

5.3 The Director - Children and Families made the following substantive points:

• It was a useful and thorough review and the Fostering service welcomed the recommendations.
• The Commission’s recommendations had informed the review of the current foster carer recruitment strategy.
• Last year 17 new foster carers were recruited which was noted to be considerably more than Hackney’s neighbouring boroughs, indicating how challenging this target was to achieve. The service feel confident that they will get reasonably close to the target set by the Commission of 23 new recruits per year.
• A lot of activity has taken place around recruitment including a piece of work focusing on the LGBTQi community, participating in a number of events and a social media campaign with the focus on myth busting and raising the profile of fostering through an increased number of in-house ambassadors.  It was noted that recent statistics show that foster carers or staff recruiting foster carers were the most effective ways of getting people into fostering.
• The service has implemented a system which responds to in-house foster carers enquiries within 2 days as well as a new online system which helps to filter the enquiries received so that the service only deal with those that are likely to be eligible to become foster carers. The service has found that people are often not eligible due to the fact that they have not got a spare room, however the service will still engage with people that have indicated that they are thinking about moving to a bigger property and similarly where there is a lack of child care experience the service engage and encourage people to volunteer in schools and other children settings.
• Hackney Fostering Service has been working with the Council’s Benefits and Housing Needs Service around exploring the possibility for more experienced foster carers to move into a larger property to allow them to provide additional foster placements. Two foster carers have been referred to this scheme and one foster carer has already moved into a larger property. It was noted that the Benefits and Housing Needs Service is committed to this initiative and foster carers are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1 The Chair asked the officers from Children and Families Service to briefly summarise how the ‘Building foundations: Meeting the needs of unaccompanied asylum seeking children’ bid will be used and to update the Commission on the progress so far. In response the Director - Children and Families made the following substantive points:

• Hackney has been awarded just over a quarter of a million pounds for a two-year project to support unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
• We recognise that unaccompanied asylum seeking children have very particular and specific needs and the bid will be used to take the two stands of the project forward:

-  recruiting foster carer and supported lodgings

-  developing independence and integration

• The latter includes helping them settle, provide support around their asylum application and preparing them for the possible rejection and repatriation back to their country of origin.
• Further, the bid will be used to reduce isolation and setting up support groups reflective of their background as well as ensuring they receive the support required from the Virtual School.
• It was noted that a lot of this support was already in place but the bid allows the service to set up the supported lodgings which requires more investment to start with and allows them to invest in additional specialist support. This aids the other professionals in the means of providing advice and an opportunity to up-skill while ensuring that the expertise is maintained in the service beyond the two years. These two specialist posts have been successfully recruited to.

Questions and answers

6.2 The Chair wanted to know a bit more about the role of the Home Office worker and how their services might be used to assist unaccompanied minors. In addition, the Commission also sought to understand how the current climate of immigration has impacted on the existing service and if this bid alleviates some of the pressures in the system.  In response the Director - Children and Families made the following substantive points:

• A Home Office representative already works with the service one day a week providing support to families with no recourse to public funds around the immigration process and help to expedite their right to remain. It was noted that the Home Office representative will provide support and advice when challenging decisions around deportation.
• The national allocation quota was set to 0.07% of the child population and in Hackney this equates to 42. Hackney currently supports 42 unaccompanied minors and this number was expected to remain close to 42 despite two of them turning 18 shortly. It was noted that this in conjunction with more care leavers still going through the asylum process does put a strain on the local authority and therefore the additional funding is welcomed.
• Further, finding legal representation to deal with these complex issues also presents a challenge due to a decrease in capacity as well as being due to the relatively short window of time to help those that come to Hackney when they are around 17  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1 The Chair handed over to the Cabinet Member for Families, Early Years and Play and Cllr Gordon to present this item and asked them to begin by outlining the context, why the group was set up, progress so far and the next steps. In response, Cllr Gordon made the following substantive points:

• The group meets in private, for accountability the terms of references have been put to the Commission to comment on in public.

• Last year, the Council launched a consultation in regards to the changes to the funding structures for SEND (Special Educational needs and Disability) in schools. The consultation received a very large response from parents and campaigners, these responses helpfully highlighted a broad range of issues in regards to the SEND provision particularly in regards to the significant reduction in resources available. It was noted that the funding had been frozen since 2012 and meanwhile the responsibility for the local authority had been extended from not only school aged children, to 0-25s. The change in the landscape had led to an increasing number of children with identified needs in relation to SEND education.
• The co-design group, which consists of Council officers, Councillors, school governors, parent representatives and SEND teacher representatives, has met three times since the beginning of August. The group has agreed on a terms of reference (as in agenda) and there was an understanding that while they might not might not cover everything the group wish to discuss this had been aired at the meetings. It was noted that the group still need to recruit a head teacher representative.
• At their last meeting the group received a helpful presentation from Haringey describing their funding model and at the forthcoming meeting they will hear from Newham around their funding model. The Commission was told that it  would also be beneficial to hear from Camden, Islington, Lewisham and Lambeth.

7.2 The Cabinet Member for Families, Early Years and Play added that the purpose of the group was to recommend options and state its preferences for the cabinet to consider and consult on. The group was looking at comparable local authority models and the group was looking at the existing 5 levels of funding and how these might be used better or changed.

7.3 The Commission were informed that there was an ongoing legal challenge and the outcome was expected to be announced in mid-November and it can be assumed that any recommendations to come out the judicial review will need to be taken into account in the scoping of a new model.

Questions and answers

7.4 The Commission wanted to know whether the group had looked at models used outside of London and wanted to gain a better sense of the timeline for this exercise. In response, the Cabinet Member for Families, Early Years and Play made the following substantive points:

• The SEND support group had also been looking at models used in Leeds and Nottinghamshire where there are similarities in the innovative approach but quite  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1 The Chair explained that since the Commission agreed at their meeting in June to look at outcomes of exclusions in Hackney as their review for this year, she had worked together with the Scrutiny officer on the draft terms of reference. This included meeting with a number of officers, reading and reviewing reports and recent research on the topic whilst being mindful to not duplicate the work done in the earlier exclusion review.

8.2 The draft terms of reference had been circulated to the Members of the Commission and to the lead officers in August for their comments.

8.3  It was noted that Cllr Peters’ had sent through a number of suggested amendments still to be incorporated into the draft terms of reference and subsequently the Chair asked the Members of the Commission for any other comments in regards to the aims and objectives, on page 88 in the agenda, before agreeing the draft terms in principle.

8.4 At this point a member of the public asked why the Commission had chosen to look at what happens after a child has been excluded, and wanted to know what the Commission learnt at the last review and highlighted that she felt it was a model that seemed to blame the children for being excluded. In response the Chair made the following substantive points:

• The Commission felt that while the reasons for exclusions and the rates of exclusions should still be monitored and reviewed, this particular review would limit its focus to looking at how the national issue around the outcomes of excluded children, which are known to be very poor, apply here in Hackney. They would also be better placed to make recommendations with an impact, unlike in the previous review where it was felt that the Commission and the local authority had limited powers to implement change across academies and independent schools. Further, while in the last five years the alternative provisions have not been reviewed by Scrutiny, this would be an opportunity to get a better understanding of what the alternative pathways can offer and how to best ensure that these children have the same opportunities as their peers in mainstream school. As well as looking at, when bearing in mind that a lot of the excluded children have identified and unidentified SEND needs, whether the alternative provision is appropriately equipped to meet the needs of these individual children.
• It was noted that the alternative provision also work with children at risk of exclusions and the Commission were therefore keen to, by reviewing this cohort, tease out if there was more that can be done or whether resources can be used differently to ensure these children remain in mainstream schools. 

8.5 At this point the Director of Education added that while it was not one of the objectives of this review to review exclusions in mainstream schools it was on Hackney Learning Trust agenda as a priority attached to an action plan.

8.6  The Members of the Commission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1 The Commission noted the actions and agreed the minutes of the last meeting.

10.1 The Members of the Commission noted the last version of the work programme for the municipal year 2018/19 including the additional joint meeting with Health in Hackney in November when the Commission will receive an update from the Integrated Commissioning Children, Young People and Maternity Work stream.

10.2 It was noted that there was flexibility in the work programme to include another 3-4 substantial discussion items and the Chair encouraged the Commission to put forward areas/topics for scrutiny including context, objectives and desired outcomes outside of the meeting.

11.1 None received.