Agenda and minutes
PDF 175 KBVenue: Room 102, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA
Contact: Martin Bradford Email: (martin.bradford@hackney.gov.uk)
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: 1.1 Apologies for absence were received from the following members of the Commission: · Cllr Lee Laudat Scott; · Cllr Midnight Ross; · Cllr Caroline Selman · Jacquie Burke, Group Director of Children and Education.
1.2 The following members connected virtually: · Cllr Anya Sizer · Salmah Kansara (Co-opted Member) · Sudenaz Top (Hackney Youth Parliament). |
|
|
Urgent Items / Order of Business Minutes: 2.1 There were no urgent items and the agenda was as had been published. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: 3.1 The following declarations were received by members of the Commission: · Jo Macleod, was a school governor and a mother of child with SEND in the borough; · Cllr Anya Sizer, was a mother of a child with SEND in the borough; · SalmahKansara, worked for a children centre in the borough. |
|
|
SEND Partnership Action Plan (19.05) Following the publication of the Hackney SEND Strategy in 2022, members are invited to scrutinise plans to deliver services in line with agreed priorities as set out in the SEND Partnership Action Plan. Additional documents: Minutes: 4.1 The SEND Strategy for Hackney was agreed by Cabinet in October 2022. To support the delivery of key priorities within this strategy a SEND Partnership Action Plan has been developed by local Education, Health and Social Care services. Members were invited to scrutinise delivery plans and to question officers present.
4.2 The Chair invited respective leads from education, health and social care to set out key aspects of the plan for their services and the opportunities and challenges that they foresee. · Education - The Director of Education indicated that the strategy and action plan was a partnership approach that would help those with additional needs get the support that they needed for their education and development. The Assistant Director for High Needs noted that the action plan not only responded to the strategy, but also the peer-review of SEND services which was conducted in 2022. The peer review noted that whilst there was lots of good activity across SEND services, these would benefit from greater coordination across the local partnership. It was noted that the 10 priority areas identified in the peer review are mirrored in the action plan (as work streams). It was also noted that this remained a draft plan until finalised and ratified by the local area SEND Partnership Board. · Health - The Strategic Lead reiterated the support from health agencies for the action plan, noting that health was contributing to every work stream. Health partners noted that the inclusion of the voice of young people and parental engagement, together with a commitment to co-production, were important aspects of the action plan. Demand and capacity issues were having an impact on waiting times across the SEND system, and it was hoped that the action plan would develop a system wide response to this issue. · Social Care - The Head of Disabled Children's Service indicated that the action plan would help to streamline the way that local services work together to support children with SEND. From a social care perspective, the establishment of the Early Help Hub (where key statutory partners work together) has helped to support local joint working relationships.
Questions from the Commission
4.3 What are the governance arrangements for overseeing the action plan? How inclusive is the SEND Partnership Board and how does it relate to the SEND Transformation Team? · The Board is not only made up of local commissioners but also of providers within the local SEND system. There is also representation from local parents via the Parent Governor Forum. Attendance at the meeting was around 20 people which provided a good assessment of the level of local engagement. A new Executive Board has been established to bring greater clarity to decision making and to improve oversight of the local SEND system to ensure that resources are being spent in line with local priorities and that executive leads are aware of strategic risks. · In terms of transformation there were a number of boards which needed to have oversight of the SEND system which ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
|
Hackney Education - Budget Monitoring (19.55) Members are invited to scrutinise in-year budget (2022/23) for Hackney Education, including actions taken to address overspends and progress against agreed cost savings. Additional documents: Minutes: 5.1 Budget monitoring is an important part of the overview and scrutiny function, and the Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission reviews the budgets of key council directorates annually to ensure that spending is aligned to budgets and the agreed policy priorities of the Council. The budget monitoring report provided detailed in-year budgets for Hackney Education, together with management actions taken to address overspends and the service’s progress in achieving agreed budget savings for 2022/23.
Hackney Education (HE) and Corporate Finance (CF) 5.2 (HE) Key points to note from the report was that the overspend in SEND services in the region of £5.4m was contributing to overall deficit across Hackney Education (HE). There were also some significant areas of underspends in the service in the Dedicated Schools Grant.
5.3 (CF) noted that there were overspends in SEND, children’s centre and operations budgets, with underspends, the overall forecast position for HE is a £4.8m overspend. The cumulative overspend for SEND was predicted to be £18.7m by the end of this financial year.
Questions from the Commission 5.4 Officers in the past have suggested that under-occupancy is a key driver of overspends within children’s centres, yet the budget table in Appendix 1 of the report shows that those centres with highest occupancy have the highest forecast overspend? Can officers explain further? Could officers clarify the future spend for Hillside Children Centre? There is an overspend of £148k at Ann Tayler Children Centre which equates to 30% of the total overspend in the Children Centre budget. What factors are driving the overspend in this specific children's centre? · It was noted that the report was taken at month 8, with 4 months remaining in the current financial year which may in part explain the discrepancy between the year to date and year end positions. There are three key factors which are driving financial variations across children’s centres: o Income derived from childcare fees; o Energy costs associated with individual centres; o Agency costs to cover vacancies as they arise. · In the case of Ann Tayler CC, the overspends were largely as a result of the use of energy costs and agency staff usage.
5.5 What is the current status of the two children’s centres (Hillside and Fernbank) which were earmarked for closure within the consultation? Are all services continuing to be provided from both sites? Are staff being recruited to positions that become vacant? Are sites continuing to operate at the same capacity and accepting children? · Fernbank is a school run children centre so does not figure in the budget specifically (but under school commissioned services). Most vacancies across children’s centres are being covered by fixed term or interim placements with agencies whilst the children centre programme remains in review. (This issue is picked up in greater detail in section 6- Cabinet Q & A).
5.6 The pandemic changed the way that families use childcare, but does the current system of fees and charging (which were agreed pre-pandemic) reflect the new usage patterns of ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
|
Cabinet Q & A (20.30) To question the Cabinet member for Families, Parks and Leisure on (children and families) services within this portfolio. Minutes: 6.1 Each year, the Cabinet members with responsibility for children services are invited to attend the Commission to respond to questions on services within their respective portfolio. The Commission welcomed Cllr Caroline Woodley, the Cabinet member for Families, Parks and Leisure, who responded to questions on three policy areas in her portfolio which relate to children and families. The focus of these three policy areas and their responses are given below.
6.2 Can the Cabinet member update the Commission on future plans for Children's Centres? - Setting out prospective key decisions (by Cabinet) and timescales for future proposals; - How proposals for the development of Family Hubs (including additional funding) relate to future re-configuration of children's centres? Cabinet member response - The local Affordable Childcare Commission has been established and an independent chair has been appointed and would be confirmed at the official launch of the Commission in March. The Commission would run between 6-9 months and run in parallel with other consultation events (e.g. establishment of Family Hubs). - Family Hubs, was a national programme which was being rolled out to 75 local authorities to provide extended support for children and families. Hackney was one of the 75 authorities chosen and would receive approximately £4m of funding over 3 years to support this development. The focus was on start for life (first 1,000 days) and parental support including parenting, perinatal mental health and establishment of parent carer forums. It does not however fund childcare. Although there is no additional funding for 0-19 provision, it will allow services to align with local youth hubs. There has been extensive consultation with stakeholders to help make Children and Family Hubs part of a more supportive system for local young people and their families. The first tranche of funding had been received and officers were looking to establish services. - Cabinet approval will be sought to transfer 6 multi-agency children centres into multiagency hubs. The current hub and spoke model over 6 cluster areas would migrate over 8 neighbourhood areas to become coterminous with primary care services. There are plans to consult the CYP Scrutiny Commission on these plans. There are also plans to transform 2 children centres into ARP for children with complex needs (1 in north and 1 in south). Cabinet approval would be sought in autumn of 2023 which would require a consultation on plans to take place in May/June 2023. - HE would also be looking to cease services at one children centre in response to continuing overspends in this budget. HE was consulting local schools who provided children’s centres to assess to get a strategic assessment and whether they wished to vary or discontinue from current services agreements. - In summary the Children Centre review will take recommendations from the Affordable Childcare Commission and Family Hubs process to inform future options for the service, including possible outsourcing to community and voluntary sector services.
Questions from the Commission 6.2.1 Will there be any mental health provision or emotional support ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
Children & Families Annual Report 2021/22 (21.20) Members are invited to note the Children and Families Annual Report and to submit any questions, the responses to which will be published at the next available meeting of the Commission. Additional documents: Minutes: 7.1 The Children’s Social Care Annual Report is a standing item on the Commission’s work programme. The report could not be taken as scheduled within the work programme, therefore the report is published at page 61 of the report pack for members to note. This report details children’s social care activity for the period 2021/22.
7.2 Members were requested to submit questions that they may have about the report in writing to the scrutiny officer, who will then collate these and present them to Children and Families Service for a response. These responses will then be published at a future meeting of the Commission. |
|
|
Work Programme 2022/23 Members are invited to note and agree the work programme of the Commission for the remainder of 2022/23. Additional documents: Minutes: 8.1 The updated work programme for the remainder of 2022/23 was reviewed by members, the main changes and updates were noted as below::
· Child Q scrutiny meeting planned for March 28th would be postponed to 25th April 2023.
· Support for Young Parents (20th March 2023) - focus groups were taking place with young parents on the evening of 6th and 8th March 2023. If members want to be involved - there was space for 1 or 2 to participate. The Chief Executive of the Family Rights Group will also be attending on 20th March (next meeting) alongside other Public Health, Children and Families and Health services.
· Accessibility of CAMHS (17th April 2022) - the focus group with 6 providers from the CAMHS Alliance is taking place on 22nd MArch at 6.30pm. All members were invited to attend which will be an opportunity to learn more about local provision and question services on CAMHS accessibility ahead of the meeting in April. The Vice Chair and Chair would also visit a small number of CAMHS services on March 10th 2023. Given the size and sensitivity of visits it was not possible to include other members, but those attending would formally give feedback to the whole Commission.
· Housing Support for Care Leavers - Cabinet response had been delayed and was now expected at the end of March.
· Childhood Food Poverty - Cabinet member response was expected at the end March. |
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting Members are invited to note and agree the minutes of the last meeting (16th January 2023). Additional documents:
Minutes: 9.1 Members noted and agreed on the minutes of the meeting held on 16th January 2023.
9.2 Actions arising from the minutes: · Outcome from School Exclusions (questions unable to be asked at the meeting on 16/1/23 and which received a written response at page 171 of the report pack).
There were no further comments or notes from the responses.
· Unregistered Settings - Letter to Secretary of State for Education - for members for review
· Unregistered Settings - Letter to Group Director for Children and Education and local leadership - for members for review
· City & Hackney Safeguarding Partnership - data on attendees of adultification bias training was as below:
Between July 2021 and January 2023, the CHSCP has funded 24 training sessions. A total of 371 practitioners have attended from the following sectors: Education - 62 Health - 107 Local Authority - 80 Police - 74 (68 from the MPS) VCS - 42 other - 6 |
|
|
Any Other Business Minutes: 10.1 There was no other business and the meeting closed at 9.45pm. |