Agenda item
Child Poverty Strategy 2011 - 2021
This report sets out a ten year strategy to address child poverty in the borough. The strategy identifies key priority areas to reduce child poverty through improved collaboration of existing service areas. The strategy has been developed by working closely with the council’s partners.
Minutes:
Tony Hirsch (Head of Policy and Performance) introduced a report to the committee outlining Brent’s Child Poverty Strategy 2011 – 2021 and detailing the reasons for its development. The Child Poverty Act 2010 required all local authorities to conduct a child poverty needs assessment for their areas and subsequently, to publish a Child Poverty Strategy. Brent’s child poverty needs assessment had been completed in August 2011. Brent currently ranked within the poorest performing 10 per cent against the Child Wellbeing Index (CWI), which measured child wellbeing across a range of different domains, including material wellbeing, education, health and housing. There were currently 34.4 per cent of children under the age of 16 living in poverty in Brent, with the highest rates of poverty being concentrated in the wards of Stonebridge, Harlesden, South Kilburn and parts of Welsh Harp, Barnhill and Alperton. Stonebridge ward contained two of the worst ranked areas in England for the CWI.
Tony Hirsch advised that Brent’s Child Poverty Strategy applied to the entire council and its partners and had been developed through close collaboration with partner agencies and organisations. It was therefore, a high level strategy which set key priorities and objectives for all of Brent. It was anticipated that this strategy would be referenced in other strategies, such as the Children and Young People Plan, and it was in these documents that detailed actions, developed against the overall priorities of the Child Poverty Strategy, would be set out. The strategy set out 6 key priorities for Brent: reduce the poverty levels of children living low income households; support troubled families; reduce the NEET group; improve the financial capacity of parents; support Looked after children and children at the edge of care; and, improve the health and wellbeing of children with a focus on reducing obesity, tooth decay and poor mental health. The strategy was a long term document reflecting that the intergenerational factors influencing poverty were longstanding, cultural and vulnerable to the performance of the national economy. The strategy would be reviewed annually and would be monitored by Partners for Brent. The action plan and associated performance indicators would be monitored by the Executive of Partners for Brent, as well as the individual service areas and partners responsible for their operational delivery.
During members’ discussion, the committee raised a number of issues. Councillor Mitchell Murray commented that the priorities set out in the strategy were very vague and did not adhere to the expected standards of being specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART). Councillor Mitchell Murray added that it was important not to unrealistically raise peoples hopes and further, queried what the report meant when it indicated that there were ‘no financial implications’. Dr Levison further reiterated that it was important to ensure that the use of language was appropriate and not misleading in terms of the council’s achievable objectives. Councillor Pavey expressed concern that the report did not adequately address how changes would be made but instead focussed on what changes were desired. Councillor Al-Ebadi advised that the action plan was not sufficient and that the strategy should be far more comprehensive. He further requested that a report be provided by officers regarding the implications of the new welfare reforms, and particularly their impact on child poverty in the borough.
In response to members’ queries Tony Hirsch advised that he accepted that the Strategy needed to be developed further and the action plan needed to be more robust. The strategy had not been intended to set out a detailed action plan but rather be a high level guiding document, to which other strategies should make reference. This approach had been employed in recognition of the complexity of the issues contributing to child poverty, but perhaps a stronger emphasis should be placed on child poverty in all council decision making. In stating that there were ‘no financial implications’ to the report, it was meant that the report did not propose any additional costs for members to consider. The actions encompassed by the strategy were not new initiatives, rather the strategy was an expression of the work that the council was already doing or planning to do to mitigate child poverty in Brent. The strategy would be revisited and a regular update report on the strategy could be submitted to the meeting to address what actions had been taken and how these contributed towards achieving the objectives set out in the strategy. A report was due to be submitted to the Executive on the impact of welfare reforms on Brent.
Ms Goudlbourne expressed concern that teachers had not been consulted with regard to the strategy and explained that the Brent Teachers’ Panel represented all teachers, including head teachers, in Brent and it was therefore important that officers made use of this channel of consultation. Ms Cooper commented on the importance of a joined up and co-ordinated approach to decisions which impacted the lives of children, noting that it had not been uncommon for different departments and organisations to pursue dissimilar and counter-productive approaches to the same issues.
The Chair noted that the excitement that had accompanied the strategy when it had been initially proposed appeared to have died down and that it was evident that further work was needed on the strategy. As much of the detail was contained in other strategies, and particularly, the Children and Young People plan, this should be brought to the committee for further scrutiny. It would also be important for a lead officer to be responsible for the strategy to aid clear lines of accountability. Anna Janes (Head of Children and Families Policy and Performance) advised that the named person would be in the near future.
RESOLVED: -
- that the report on the Child Poverty Strategy be noted
- that officers revisit the strategy and the action plan to address the concerns raised by the committee
- that regular update reports on the Child Poverty Strategy be submitted to the committee.
Supporting documents: