Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Fower.

There were no declarations of Interest or whipping declarations.

There were no requests for Call-in to consider.

The Assistant Director, Safeguarding Families and Communities introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the work of the Corporate Parenting Panel (CPP) over the last year. It was highlighted that this panel played a crucial role in safeguarding and improving life chances for children. The report demonstrated how effective corporate parenting was in working towards improving how children were looked after.  This was the first Annual Report and future reports would be presented on an annual basis.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members noted that the report mentioned benefits delivered through a new local ‘scorecard’ and asked what the ‘scorecard’ was as it had not been included in the report. Members were informed that the’ scorecard’ tracked data that had to be produced for the Department of Education around performance for Looked After Children. The ‘scorecard’ covered the number of Looked After Children, where they were placed; how far away they were placed from Peterborough; the number of children placed in foster care; those placed in residential care and schools; their health assessments. The ‘scorecard’ was currently very much about ‘hard data’.   The CPP were trying to look more at the child’s experience and include qualitative data that demonstrated how well the children were cared for. The ‘scorecard’ was presented at every CPP meeting.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the report.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the work being undertaken to develop a strategy and action plan for tackling poverty in Peterborough.  The Performance and Information Officer from the Neighbourhoods team was introduced to the Committee as he had helped in providing the data in the report. The report had been presented twice previously to the Committee, and was work-in-progress. The Committee were asked to review the Strategy and Action Plan and provide feedback. The Committee was also asked to endorse the continuation of the working group; as well as the expansion of the group. Members were advised of the proposal for the Communities and Cohesion Board to take on the responsibility for overseeing and directing the work to tackle poverty.  Members were informed that there was already a lot of work taking place to tackle poverty.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members expressed concern that the amount of data that was being added to justify the strands that were within the report was creating an impossible model to maintain.

·         Members noted that there were inaccuracies within the report such as the statement that the amount of job seekers claiming allowance was still rising; while it was known that the amount has gone down since December.

·         Members raised concern over the GDHI income per head figures; which was presented over 12 years rather than a more recent trend of 6 years. Members were advised that the initial scope for the report was to look at all data available to be able to provide a full insight. Officers felt that the GDHI measure should be used but agreed that there should be stricter criteria in place.

·         Members asked when the report would be finalised. Members were advised that it needed to be signed off and adopted by the Local Authority as soon as possible. If the Committee were comfortable with the report presented officers would work on it over the summer months and bring it back for review in September.

·         Members suggested that the NEET report could feed into the Poverty Strategy as there seemed to be a direct link between examination results and poverty existing within the city. Could evidence be found that correlates poverty with educational outcomes? Members were advised that this task had already been included on the work programme. Some of the data from the NEET report had been included in the report and some work had already been done regarding the correlation between educational outcomes and poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation had a good understanding on this relationship and suggested three different levels of support for families who were vulnerable to lower education. Officers suggested that the following be included in the action plan going forward: a micro-level approach (actions dealing with individuals); a macro-level (social structures in place to support families); and an intermediate support level (the context in which families, schools and peer groups operate and support one another).

·         Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The purpose of the report was to inform the Committee of the current position in the city regarding young people who are not in Education, Employment and Training. The report highlighted the work of the NEET team and the actions taken to reduce the number of NEET people in the city. It was noted that young people classed as NEET had poorer life chances and that the Local Authority has a statutory responsibility to identify these people. It was highlighted that the June figure for NEET’s was 7.58% and this downward trajectory continued. There had been a large focus on Looked After Children and it was now known that there were 85.71% of Looked After Children who were in some form of education which was great progress for the NEET team.

The team manager for the NEET team was introduced to the Committee, who explained what each ‘Employability Programme’ involved.   This included information on the Prince’s Trust Team programme and programmes that were in partnership with Cross Keys Homes.   There was also a weekly Work Club which was run out of the central library youth access point. The Pre-ESOL programme addressed a particular area of concern regarding a number of young people with English language difficulties. This programme aimed to assist those young people whose language was not sufficient to start on the ESOL programme. It was noted that a number of those attending this course were previously unknown to the NEET team. The outreach performed by the NEET team had helped to identify these young people.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members congratulated Cross Key Homes on the work they were doing for NEETs.

·         Members asked if there was a limit as to how many young people could take part in the Prince’s Trust programme. Members were informed there was a limit of 19 young people per course.

·         Members asked if the 0-19 youth workers were the ones finding young people who attended the Pre-ESOL course. Members were informed that one of the advisors to NEET, who worked with a youth worker who had good relationships with local Eastern European Groups in the area had helped recruit young people with limited language skills.

·         Members asked what the quality of employment was like for NEET’s and was their progress monitored to ensure they were not dismissed. Members were reminded that the young people they got into employment were those that had not achieved well in education or to high academic levels. Moving the young people into work was only part of the team’s goals.  A lot of time was spent getting them into college so that they could further themselves and give themselves opportunities for high level work placements. The work placements the NEET team obtained were the best possible appropriate placements for the young people. Placements were monitored and there was a team of trackers who contacted the young people on a three monthly basis until their 19^th birthday to find out what their situation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Assistant Director, Education and Resources introduced the report which provided the Committee with the latest version of the School Improvement Strategy, which outlined the proposed approach the authority would take  in targeting schools.  The Strategy had been prepared to ensure schools understood what the Local Authority could offer to them and to create accountability for both the Local Authority and schools and to ensure schools were fully aware of how they were performing.  The intention was to send the reports out to all schools in September alongside the relevant data sheets.

            Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members commented that it appeared to be a good strategy and it was hoped that with these measures in place improvements would continue.

·         Members commented on the focus on lower achieving schools and highlighted the importance of ensuring there was oversight and management of this; and ensuring the skills for monitoring was retained within the Local Authority to ensure the focus remained.

·         Members noted the separation within the report in terms of management oversight and school-to-school support systems. Members highlighted the pace of dependency on school-to-school partnership and challenged officers to ensure there was a gradual transition where appropriate rather than pushing too fast and losing the core Local Authority supervision that would still be needed. Members were informed that the principles of monitoring, support, intervention and challenge would have to be written throughout the school-to-school partnership. Members were updated in terms of the pace of change. A conference was held in June with Head Teachers and there had been a subsequent working group meeting with Head Teachers where positive steps had been made to implement driving school-to-school support. The intention was that this work would continue in early autumn and a further report would be brought to Scrutiny in November.

·         Members sought clarification on the OfSTED categories.  Members were given clarification as to the OfSTED categories and how these were used to measure a school’s performance. Standards in terms of achievements were the priority and there was an important link between standards of attainment and rates of progress. Therefore even schools with low standards could still be outstanding.

·         Members commented that it was important to look in terms of year on year incremental progress. It had been stated before that the progress of children between Key Stage 1 and 2 had been of high standards; but from Key Stage 2 to 4 it was not satisfactory. Was this still the case? Members were advised that the results would not be published until August; although there had been a clear focus in secondary schools around progress measures. One of the problems that secondary schools had was that measures in terms of progress did not get published while Key Stage 4 results were published. However, progress predictions indicated that there would be an improvement this year.

·         Members asked officers if they could elaborate on the following phrase in the report: “We will use our democratic mandate to champion the interests of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Assistant Director, Education and Resources introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the Peterborough EAL Strategy to improve the attainments of pupils with English as an additional language and to outline the actions that are proposed to take place. It was highlighted that a key part of this strategy was to provide a sustainable solution so that schools could continue to support and provide as necessary for the EAL children in the future. This involved up-skilling the teachers and giving them strategies to work with this group of children to ensure they were quickly and smoothly integrated into the education system.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members welcomed the strategy and commented that it had been needed for a long time.

·         Members asked if there was enough traction being made on the items identified in paragraph 5.3 of the report, relating to an implementation plan; particularly the time-critical items. Members were advised that a lot of this work had already been done. It was noted that the team has been given more resources to run the programme. It would however take time to impact on outcomes. Members were also advised that there had been huge interest in the courses offered; although not as much from secondary schools and therefore the team would focus on engaging with them in the future.

·         Members asked if the training and resource that had already been provided to Local Authority Governors could be delivered to all Governors. Members were advised that this strategy would be launched with Governors in the autumn. The intention was to use hubs to get the training delivered to as many schools as possible, as well as to ensure all Governors were given an EAL handbook. The first stage of the strategy involved marketing and making sure information was available so that everyone knew how to access the services.

·         Members asked when the reference group of school leaders and key partners was going to be established. Members were informed that the reference group was due to be set up in September. The EAL team were already in communications with a number of schools and eight head teachers had signed up to join the group.

·         Members asked what sort of interest school Governors had shown in the training offered and if there was a record of which schools were poorly represented? Members were advised that there was a Governor Forum held every half term, where training was offered to all Governors. Approximately 85 people attended the last session. The intention was that a copy of the EAL strategy would be sent to every school alongside the School Improvement strategy. As part of the governance support service, the team would offer a dedicated training session for Governors. Each of the schools that subscribed were allowed a dedicated training session in school.

·         Members asked if there were any links made with other Local Authorities regarding school-to-school partnerships; and to what extent was this work being pushed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Executive Director of Children’s Services introduced the report.  The report informed the Committee on progress that had been made on the Children’s Services Improvement Programme which had been put in place following an Ofsted Inspection in August 2011.  The progress report had been a regular report to the committee and the last update to the committee had been in June 2013.   Members were advised that performance in general was being sustained. Going forward Children’s Services would need to reconfigure the staff structure in order to accommodate work load without taking on any new staff. It was noted that there would be a focus on Family Support Services and Direct Intervention services in future.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members commented that a resident recently reported a concern about children living next door to their home. The Councillor reported this to Children’s Services on a Monday and received a full report by Friday. Members were impressed by this efficient service and thanked the department for this good work.

·         Members asked if Children’s Services were looking to reduce the number of  social workers. Members were advised that it had been agreed that when the additional social workers were given to the department it would be reviewed after a year and again after  eighteen months to see if the same capacity would still be required. The previous Executive Director of Children’s Services, Malcolm Newsam had advised that an additional 21 social workers were needed in order to improve the service. It was the department’s view that this capacity was still required and this had been reported to the Corporate Management Team but the department was still obliged to review it.

·         Members sought assurance that there would not be a reduction in the additional funding that had been allocated to Children’s Services. Members were advised that the team was obliged to review what provision was available to the service; whether it was necessary based on the number of referrals and work they were conducting. It was confirmed that at this point in time there was no reason to withdraw the additional social workers or funding.

·         Members asked if the report could be bought back to the Scrutiny Committee after the review to show how the social workers were being employed and whether they had been moved to different departments. Members were advised that social workers would not be moved. The review would cover the entire provision across Children’s Services and would look at whether their workers were in the right place across all the services within the department. An example was given: Some changes had been made to the Front Door so that there were more workers available to screen the initial contacts and referrals so the work was done early on rather than down the line. In order to facilitate this, some staff members had been moved from ‘Referral and Assessment’ teams to ‘Family Support’ teams. It was noted that this would always happen in social care as they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Senior Governance Officer presented the report which set out proposals to hold a cross-Scrutiny Committee event that would focus on the impacts of welfare reform. This event would be held in order to understand and mitigate against the breadth of impact on individuals, families, communities and businesses. Nominations would be sought from each Scrutiny Committee to form a working party to help plan and provide input for the day.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members asked if there were any proposed dates for the event. Members were advised that no date had been set but it would probably be held during late autumn time.

·         Alistair Kingsley and Councillor Sue Day volunteered to be part of the working party to assist in organising the event.

·         Members agreed that the Scrutiny in a Day event to focus on Welfare Reform was necessary and welcomed the proposal.

AGREED ACTION

The Committee noted the report and agreed to be part of the Cross Scrutiny Committee event.

The Committee received the latest version of the Council’s Notice of Intention to Take Key Decisions, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme.

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the Notice of Intention to Take Key Decisions and requested the following information:

·         Information on the process for choosing a new provider for Claire Lodge to be sent to the Committee.

·         Senior Governance Officer to find out why KEY/13NOV12/09 Children’s Play Services was still on the list and if it can be removed.

·         Senior Governance Officer to find out why KEY/25JUL13/02 The Expansion of Fulbridge Academy was still on the list as this has been completed.

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2013/14 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2013/14 and the Senior Governance Officer to include any additional items as requested during the meeting.

Monday 9 September 2013

The meeting began at 7.00pm and ended at 9.26pm