Agenda item

In relation to the development of the work programme for the Commission for 2022/23, members are requested to:

-  Note standing items, national and local horizon scanning and topic suggestions put forward from local stakeholders;

-  Discuss and prioritise those topics for inclusion.

9.1  The Commission develops a new work programme each year to ensure that it remains current and relevant to the needs and priorities of the community and other stakeholders. It builds a new work programme through three methods:

Standing Items  - those items which are of critical importance and which the Commission has a role to monitor and oversee.  These are detailed in Appendix A

Public and stakeholder Consultation - a wide ranging consultation to generate suggestions for consideration within the work programme. These are detailed in Appendix B

Horizon scanning - emerging issues of national and local importance which may further inform work programming. These are detailed in Appendix C

9.2  The purpose of the work programme was threefold:

Publish all suggestions to ensure transparency and openness

To allow members to review and discuss suggested items/ topics

To allow members to begging to agree on and prioritise those items or issues which should be included in the work programme

9.3  Given the commitment to standing items and existing work of the Commission there was limited capacity for the number of new items which might be agreed for 2023.  There were however a number of options to develop and extend the range of items included:

Commission can factor in Cabinet Member Questions - when members may select up to three different topic areas.

Review - the Commission is still completing Adolescents Entering Care but would be a further opportunity for more detailed review work once this was completed (after November 2022) (possibly scrutiny in a day);

The Commission can hold informal sessions with officers or undertake site visits to assist in its work.

9.4   The most important part of the session was to prioritise those issues to be included in the work programme. How and when items are taken forward in the scrutiny work programme can be decided and agreed upon later by the Commission. Important considerations for prioritising issues for inclusion within the work programme:

Does the issue or concern resonate with the local community?

Is it an area where scrutiny can potentially have a real impact?

Does this issue align with or contribute to meeting local priorities?

9.5  Depending on the nature of the topic selected, the level and nature of scrutiny required the item might take a number of different forms:

A short report which can be taken at a Commission meeting

More detailed analysis with other contributors - where a whole meeting  dedicated to this issue

More in depth analysis with other contributors and evidence gathering - through a scrutiny in a day exercise or longer review.

9.6  Members of the Commission discussed the suggestions put forward and highlighted policy or service areas that should be prioritised.  It was noted that some issues may be joint pieces of work which require cooperation with other scrutiny Commissions:

Cllr Binne Lubbock - could the issues be mapped out via topic area -  this would assist members' decisions.  It would also be useful to have an indication from Hackney Youth Parliament (HYP) of their priorities for consideration.

The Chair highlighted two possible areas for consideration for in an in-depth review for the Commission

(i) From the outcomes of the Child Q scrutiny and the suggestions of HYP, there appeared to be some consensus around the need to look at school behaviour policies and their impact on children and education - here it was noted that HYP suggested that children often struggled to adapt outside strict behaviour codes in their school;

(ii) To undertake an exploratory analysis of children’s social care to understand more about the demographics of those children assessed to be Children in Need, on a Child Protection Plan and who become looked after and to assess if there are disportionalities within this data which need to be addressed.

The Vice Chair supported the need for the Commission to investigate school behaviour policies as there was much public interest in this matter. The incident surrounding Child Q had highlighted the need to assess the impact of school behaviour policies and if these were disproportionality impacting on certain groups of students. It was suggested that it would be helpful if the Commission could include local schools and young people as well as reviewing current research and consult other boroughs.

Cllr Suso-Runge suggested that the Commission incorporate the need to develop a Leaving Care Plan and Care Charter as part of its work on adolescents entering care.  In relation to any work on fostering, it would also be helpful to investigate kinship caring and what happens when this breaks down.

Cllr Sizer also supported an assessment of school behaviour policies and the need for schools to have a trauma informed approach to supporting children in their care.  It was also suggested that when the Commission looks at Fostering, if it could also include some analysis of adoption and the process to support parents.  Many of these issues might be considered in the context of mental health services and heightened needs of children and young people post pandemic.

Jo Macleod also supported the need to investigate school behaviour policies, perhaps with an emotional wellbeing and mental health approach. 

Mental health was also a significant issue for young people coming out of the pandemic with increasing waiting lists for CAMHS in response to rising incidence of eating disorders and self-harm.  Many of these mental health issues were just emerging.

It was also suggested that the Commission should look into school avoidance and absence post pandemic and to assess what work is being undertaken to engage, involve and support affected children;

Given the increasing numbers of young people requiring an EHCPS, SEND provision is another priority for the Commission in terms of policy and practices to respond to these needs within schools and specialist settings. The Commission will need to monitor and review the implications of the SEND Green paper and track the progress of the School Estates Strategy.

Cllr Turbet-Delof also supported the suggestion to review local school behaviour policies, exploring the different cultural impacts that these may have as well as the mental health impact of excessive policies.  It was noted that some children experienced acute anxiety in relation to complying with school behaviour codes and were often fearful, lacking confidence and self-agency when they left settings where these were in operation.

9.7  The Chair summarised the following:

Suggestions for the work programme straddled four key areas:

SEND;

Mental health

Behaviour Policies

Children’s Social Care - demography, fostering and adoption

9.8  The Chair indicated that the Commission would work up and scope out suggestions into possible agenda items for inclusion within the work programme for 2022/23.  The Commission would share this ahead of the next meeting for members input and further discussion.  The Commission would also meet with officers to help scope prospective items.  Items for September would need to be agreed early in the summer to ensure officers had sufficient time to prepare.  It was noted that the recruitment and retention of foster carers was likely to be included on the 8th September agenda.

Action: The Commission agreed to map out suggestions by topic area, and develop more detailed agenda item proposals for inclusion within the work programme which would be circulated to members.