Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Rooms 1 and 2, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. View directions
Contact: Bryony Gibbs, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1355 Email: bryony.gibbs@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declaration of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting any relevant financial or other interest in the items on the agenda. Minutes: Councillor Cheese stated that he was a member of the Advisory Board for the Kilburn Locality. |
|
Deputations (if any) Minutes: There were no deputations. |
|
Minutes of the last meeting held on 8 December 2011 PDF 149 KB Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 8 December 2011 were approved as a correct record. |
|
Matters Arising Minutes: The Chair sought an update regarding the status of the following recommendations made at the last meeting of the committee on 8 December 2011: -
(i) Review of policy for the provision of early years full time places
RESOLVED: -
The Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed to refer the report on the provision of full time early years places to the Executive and recommended that action be taken to address the two issues of concern to members:
· That a consistent appeals procedure be put in place in schools offering full time early years places for 3 and 4 year olds
· That steps are taken to promote the availability of places to the most vulnerable families, including those who are new arrivals to the UK where language could be a significant barrier to accessing services.
(ii) Results of Ofsted Safeguarding and Looked After children Services Inspection
RESOLVED: -
That the Ofsted report, presentation and action plan be submitted to a meeting of the Executive for their consideration and to ensure they “own” the council’s response to the Inspection.
Priya Mistry (Policy and Performance Officer) advised that the agenda for the next meeting of the Executive had not yet been published but that this would be followed up.
|
|
Brent Youth Parliament update A verbal update will be provided to the committee by Brent Youth Parliament representatives.
Minutes: The committee welcomed Thivya Jeyashanker, the newly elected Chair for Brent Youth Parliament. Thivya Jeyashanker informed the committee that elections for the BYP Executive had been held on 28 January 2012 and the results of the election were as follows: -
· Chair - Thivya Jeyashanker · Vice Chair - Omar Mohamed · UK Youth Parliament representative - Chante Joseph · Deputy UK Youth Parliament representative - Priyesh Patel · Media representative - Adam Massoud
Thivya Jeyashanker advised that the new executive would now decide on its priorities for the forthcoming year. The next meeting of the BYP would be held on 25 February and Thivya Jeyashanker noted that all councillors would be welcome to attend. |
|
Youth Offending Team Inspection PDF 142 KB An inspection of the Brent Youth Offending Service was conducted in September 2011 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. The results of this inspection will be presented to the Committee for scrutiny.
Minutes: Anita Dickinson (Head of Service - Brent Youth Offending Service) presented a report to the committee setting out the results of a recent inspection of the Brent Youth Offending Service (YOS). The inspection took place in September 2011 and was conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP). Anita Dickinson explained that Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in England and Wales had been established under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act and formed part of the criminal justice system. YOTs worked with young people aged 10 to 18 years old who were referred via court order. YOTs were multi-agency and drew staffing and resources from a range of services including the Local Authority, the Police, the Probation Service and the Health Service.
Anita Dickinson explained that the inspection had examined a representative sample of offender cases to assess whether work had been carried out sufficiently well against the HMIP criteria. Three key practice areas were assessed; Risk of Harm, Safeguarding and Likelihood of Re-Offending. The judgement scale utilised by HMIP related to the level of improvement required, with possible outcomes encompassing ‘Minimum’, ‘Moderate’, ‘Substantial’ and ‘Drastic’. Brent achieved a ‘Moderate’ award for both Safeguarding and the Likelihood of re-offending with scores of 65% and 62% respectively. For Risk of Harm which related principally to Public Protection, a score of 59% had been awarded and it was judged that substantial improvement was required. Brent’s scores were close to the National Average and were greater than the results currently published for other London Youth Offending Services. Five recommendations had been proposed by HMIP for Brent and an improvement Plan to address these recommendations had since been developed and agreed with HMIP.
Anita Dickinson emphasised that the inspection was focused on how well the required processes had been followed for each case rather than outcomes. As a consequence there was some question as to whether this type of inspection provided a full assessment of the quality of the service provided. In addition, immediately prior to the inspection the Brent YOS had been subject to a budget reduction of almost 30%. As many other London YOTs had experienced similar budget reductions a request had been made to delay the inspection for London, however, this had been unsuccessful.
In the subsequent discussion, members raised several issues and queries. Ms Elsie Points sought further information regarding the inspection judgement which stated that there was little evidence of joint working within the YOT. Councillor Mathews queried how well the Brent rates for reoffending compared to other London YOTs and sought further details on whether budget reductions in partner agencies had impacted Joint Working for YOTs. Councillor Cheese queried whether YOTs had any input for young people whilst they were in custody. The Chair sought further details regarding the Triage programme, referred to within the report. The Chair also queried whether there had been any noticeable increase in youth offending rates by Brent young people following the riots of August 2011.
In addressing the committee’s queries, Anita Dickinson advised ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Complex Families Review A presentation providing an overview of the Complex Families Project which is being developed by the council and partner agencies will be delivered to the committee by Fiona Ledden (Director of Legal and Procurement) and Joanna McCormick (Partnerships Co-ordinator). The aim of the project is to pilot multi agency early intervention with a cohort of families in the borough. Minutes: Joanna McCormick (Partnerships Co-ordinator) and Fiona Ledden (Director of Legal and Procurement) delivered a presentation to the committee on the Complex Families Project. This project was being developed by the council and partner agencies and aimed to pilot multi-agency early intervention with a cohort of families in the borough. The project would have one management structure, which would facilitate better joint working. Intervention would be co-ordinated via key workers and with reference to individual family plans which would be developed in collaboration with families. Key workers would be required to have specialist knowledge in certain areas which would ensure that there would be a range of knowledge and experience available within the team. This model would bring the necessary professionals around the individual and families as and when needed and would reduce duplication of work.
Fiona Ledden explained that she was sponsoring this project, which entailed providing support to the project in its progress through the one-council programme. This project reflected the amalgamation of several key initiatives being driven forward by central government. It was intended that the positive results of the project would be evident through a reduced impact on the criminal justice system and social care services.
Joanna McCormick further explained that an analysis of child poverty in Brent had indicated that 34.1% of families struggle to meet the basic necessities of life. Parents were disadvantaged by various factors including employability, child care costs and house prices. Changes to benefit entitlement would further disadvantage certain families; in particular lone parents and families with two or more children were at greater risk of this. Central government had estimated that over 1000 families would lose an average of £83 per week in Brent and a further 8,000 would experience reductions just from the cap on Housing Benefit. The project would work with families as a whole and aimed to tackle poverty not ‘troubled families’. Challenges for the project included the national economic context, unemployment and the effective coordination of different central government department initiatives.
Several queries were raised by members in the subsequent discussion. The Chair sought details of how families were identified for this project and Councillor Matthews queried how hard to reach families would be engaged. The Chair and Ms J Cooper (Observer) also sought details regarding the funding arrangements for the project. Councillor Matthews further queried whether support via the project was maintained in the longer term.
In response to members’ questions, Joanna McCormick advised that a risk based assessment would be conducted following the receipt of a referral which could be made by a range of services. 150 families were being identified so far with central government seeking a larger number of families to be supported by each authority through its troubled families programme over the next 3 years. Criteria had been established which set the parameters for the cohort of families with whom the project aimed to engage and attempts would be made to identify hard to reach families that might meet this criteria.
|
|
Special Educational Needs - Additional Resourced Schools PDF 280 KB This report was prepared for the Schools Forum and is presented to the Committee for discussion. The report provides an analysis of Brent’s performance on a range of indicators in comparison with other authorities with similar characteristics. It sets out the robust actions which have been taken to manage demand and reduce costs whilst improving quality of provision and maintaining good outcomes for Brent children with Special Educational Needs.
Minutes: Rik Boxer presented a report to the committee focusing on the provision of school places for young people with high level special educational needs (SEN). Whilst the majority of children with SEN had their needs met within mainstream schools, those with severe and complex needs would have a Statement of SEN drawn up which would set out the special provision required to meet their needs; this might include a specialist placement. Due to factors such as a rising population, the numbers of children requiring SEN statements had increased over the previous 5 years, in contrast to the national trend which had fallen over the same period. As a result of this trend there was a substantial budgetary deficit within the Dedicated Schools Budget which affected the total funds available for schools in Brent. Rik Boxer explained that the report provided to the committee set out what actions were proposed to address this issue.
Rik Boxer advised that a SEN transformation programme was being driven via the One Council Programme Management Board. The aim of the programme was to maintain and improve outcomes for SEN whilst reducing the associated costs and eliminating the dedicated schools budget deficit over a 3 year period. The council was working closely with the Schools’ Forum and with schools direct to achieve this aim. All aspects of the council’s SEN policy and procedures were being reviewed and a strategy was being developed. All parties would be consulted and the draft strategy document would be issued by March 2012.
Rik Boxer advised that there were several strands to the SEN transformation programme including school expansion projects to increase local specialist provision. It was noted that the single largest factor in overall SEN costs resulted from placing Brent students in day placements outside of the borough and therefore the school expansion projects were a highly significant aspect of the programme. Members’ attention was drawn to paragraphs 5.2 and 5.7 of the report which set out several school expansion projects including the development of new co-located provision for secondary aged students with severe learning difficulties via the rebuild of the Village School by September 2013 and the opening of a satellite centre at Queens Park School in September 2011; expanded specialist nursery provision at Granville Plus Children’s Centre; planned development of Vernon House Special school to provide 30 places for pupils with autism; and the intention to establish a 20 place Additionally Resourced Provision at Alperton community School, for which agreement in principle had been obtained.
The committee raised several issues in the subsequent discussion. The Chair queried how the school expansion projects were financed. Ms J Cooper queried whether the knowledge and experience of SEN teachers and Head teachers had been made use of by the One Council programme. Ms J Cooper further noted that many of the school expansion projects related to provision for primary aged pupils and queried whether the subsequent demand on secondary places had been addressed. Ms J Cooper also raised a concern regarding ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
School Places Update A verbal update regarding school places in the borough will be provided to the Committee. Minutes: Rik Boxer presented a verbal update to the committee regarding school places within Brent. The shortage of primary school places remained an acute problem and was exacerbated by the continued flow of new arrivals to the borough. At present there were 632 primary aged children in Brent without a school place. Whilst there were currently 306 vacancies across Brent’s primary schools, these were not necessarily in the required year groups or geographical areas with the highest shortfall of school places. Consultation on new permanent expansion schemes is being undertaken at Barham Primary School, Fryent Primary School and Mitchell Brook Primary School to provide additional primary provision. Temporary bulge classes would be needed from September 2012 and options for these were currently being reviewed. The government had awarded £25m to the council to contribute towards the capital costs of expanding primary provision.
Rik Boxer informed the committee that the closing date for Reception year applications had been 15 January 2012 and at present 3,717 had been received. In contrast the number of applications received for 2011 had been 3,642 which further evidenced the continued growth in demand for school places.
With reference to the minutes of the previous meeting, Mr Alloysius Frederick noted that Councillor Arnold had indicated that two schools had submitted expressions of interest in becoming all-through schools and sought an update on this. Rik Boxer advised that no decisions had yet been made. |
|
Items from the Forward Plan and the Work Programme PDF 63 KB A list of items from the Forward Plan which relate to Children and Young People’s Services is attached for the Committee’s consideration. Members are asked to examine this list and to decide whether any items warrant scrutiny by the Committee. The Committee’s work programme is also attached for Members’ consideration. Additional documents: Minutes:
The work programme items scheduled for the following meeting were outlined to the committee. The Chair noted that if members’ had any ideas for future items for scrutiny they should be forwarded to her or to Priya Mistry (Policy and Performance Officer). |
|
Date of next meeting The next meeting of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny meeting is scheduled for 29 March 2012 Minutes: The committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled to take place on Thursday 29 March 2012. |
|
Any other urgent business Notice of items raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64. Minutes: There was no urgent business. |