Agenda and minutes
PDF 57 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Rachel Yexley / Damian Markland or Andrew Spragg ,
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Colin Kemp, Duncan Hewson and Mary Reynolds. Margaret Hicks acted as a substitute for Colin Kemp and Marie Ryan acted as a substitute for Mary Reynolds. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 31 July 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on 31 July 2013 were agreed as a true record of the meeting with the following amendments:
· On page 1 of the minutes Marie Ryan acted as a substitute for Mary Reynolds rather than Derek Holbird, as stated.
· Item 4/13 paragraph 5 should state the under-spend being queried for 2012/2013 rather than 2013/2013. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (13 September 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (12 September 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
The Committee did not refer any items to the Cabinet at its last meeting, so there are no responses to report. Minutes: There were no responses from the Cabinet to report. The Committee was informed that it would receive a response to its previous recommendation to Cabinet concerning Education, Health & Care Plans at its next meeting. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the report: This report provides Members with an introduction to substantial items on this agenda, which all relate to the theme of early help and prevention. Minutes: The Chairman explained to the Committee that the aim of the meeting was to look at Early Help and Prevention in Surrey, and that there were three reports to consider on this topic. The first report gave the Committee an opportunity to consider the County’s overall approach to Early Help, while the second report on the Surrey Family Support Programme enabled Members to see an example of Early Help in practice. Finally, a report from Public Health explained how the department supported the early help and prevention programme. |
|
|
EARLY HELP OFFER - REDUCING THE NEED FOR FAMILIES TO ACCESS HIGH SUPPORT SERVICES
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services – Policy Development and Review
This report details how Surrey is working with partners to develop a Surrey-wide ‘Early Help’ strategy. It also provides examples of initiatives that are already in place to deliver the strategy, such as the Central Referral Unit (CRU). Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Witnesses:
· Caroline Budden, Deputy Director for Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council · Jon Savell, Detective Superintendent, Head of Public Protection, Surrey Police
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. It was important to identify all the partners involved in the Early Help agenda, as it would assist in making the final strategy more effective in recognising families in need of support and referring them to the right services for assistance.
2. The Deputy Director for Children, Schools and Families felt that the challenge would be to agree governance arrangements and to encourage staff to act differently. It was hoped the governance of the scheme would be agreed before the end of the year.
3. Partners, under the Early Help offer, would work towards a single assessment which would be called the “Early Help Assessment”, or similar, as agreed through engagement with partners. The processes for this assessment had been agreed by all partners, but needed to be ratified by the Safeguarding Board.
4. The Deputy Director stated that the demand for acute services had grown, but that the eventual strategy would aim to work with individuals before their problems became entrenched and they required acute support. The County Council would continue to provide statutory services but would now have a partnership strategy to recognise issues earlier. It was felt that the more joined up approach by partners would create a more effective and proactive service within the budgets currently available and would be supported by the Family Support Programme.
5. The Committee queried how the new Early Help Assessment differed from the Common Assessment Framework (CAF). They were informed that the new assessment was built upon and similar to the CAF but had been formed in conjunction with agencies rather than it being imposed on them, and this would lead to a greater sense of ownership. Additionally, the assessment would involve the views of the family, including the child.
6. Members queried where the clear offer, measurements and commitment from partners and County Council was stated, as these things had been recommended by OFSTED in their 2012 report. The Deputy Director stated that the submitted report was not the final strategy and that the action plan would state the clear measurements for the Council and partners. There was no prescriptive approach to Early Help or a complete list of agencies involved as the strategy was about tailoring services to the specific and varying needs of residents.
7. The Committee queried how the Early Help approach fitted in with the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner’s policy of Zero Tolerance and how the Police intended to approach the apparent ‘revolving door’ once young people entered the criminal justice system. It was explained by the Detective Superintendent that Zero Tolerance was more about Police Officers actively challenging bad behaviour rather than ‘locking people up and throwing away the key’. Police were frustrated by the revolving door and would support any policy which would assist in ending ... view the full minutes text for item 16/13 |
|
|
THE SURREY FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMME AND TRANSFORMING PUBLIC SERVICES
Purpose of the Report: Policy Development and Review
This provides an update on the Surrey Family Support Programme, which is a key delivery mechanism for early help and prevention in the county. Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Witnesses:
· Sean Rafferty, Head of Family Services, Surrey County Council · Caroline Budden, Deputy Director for Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council · Philip Bell, Woking Family Support Team Manager · Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children and Families · Clare Curran, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Learning
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee were informed that the Family Support Programme concentrated on families in Surrey with complex problems and who had a variety of agencies involved in assisting them. The Programme aimed to create a more streamlined process by ensuring that agencies worked together, with the Boroughs and Districts coordinating the process.
2. The Programme was part the Government’s Troubled Families initiative which aimed to turn around 1,050 troubled families in Surrey by 2015. This would be achieved with the provision of intensive support to the family for 4 to 5 hours per week for 12 weeks and the interagency Team Around the Family for up to 12 months.
3. Six Boroughs and Districts had implemented the Programme, with 358 families already participating. It was planned to be rolled out countywide from October 2013.
4. The Committee was informed that the Family Support Programme was a transformation programme which looked closely at the cost of supporting a family, with the national average currently costing around £75,000. It was felt that by working closely with families this could be lowered.
5. It was felt by the Head of Family Services that the Programme should be expanded in the future to families that did not fit the Government definition of a troubled family, so as to ensure the benefit of the Programme was wider reaching.
6. Members were concerned about the effect of the Programme on statutory services for children. The Committee was informed that although there was no new money for this initiative, the Programme would make more efficient use of resources already being utilised. Furthermore, the Programme worked with families which agencies were already in contact with, assisting them to make savings and beneficial lifestyle changes.
7. Members raised concern that many of the behaviours of these families were embedded and that 12 weeks support would not be sufficient. The Woking Family Support Team Manager explained the process of the Family Support Programme to the Committee and stressed that the agencies worked with the family to create an action plan and that the multi-agency support continued after the 12 weeks intensive support was complete.
8. The Committee queried what happened to those who refused to be part of the Programme and were informed by officers that it was a voluntary system but the door was always open should they change their mind later and that families would not lose the support they already received.
9. Members queried whether there were specific geographical areas where there were a higher number of families requiring support, and if there was whether any specific work should be done in these localities. Officers agreed that it was important ... view the full minutes text for item 17/13 |
|
|
PUBLIC HEALTH, EARLY HELP AND THE SUPPORTING FAMILIES PROGRAMME
Purpose of the Report: Policy Development and Review
This report details how Public Health, responsibility for which has recently been transferred to the local authority, can contribute to and strengthen the early help offer in Surrey. Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Witnesses:
· Helen Atkinson, Acting Director of Public Health, Surrey County Council · Kelly Morris, Public Health Principal, Surrey County Council · Caroline Budden, Deputy Director for Children, Schools and Families, Surrey County Council · Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children and Families · Michael Gosling, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Health and Wellbeing Board
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Acting Director for Public Health explained that the Public Health Team had moved from the NHS to Surrey County Council in April 2013 and were in the process of meeting colleagues from across the Council and seeing where Public Health delivery could link in and support projects such as the Early Help and Prevention programme. She explained that Public Health had three main functions: health improvement, health protection and improving health and social care services, and that their focus was on improving and protecting the health of Surrey residents through both universal schemes and targeted approaches to reduce health inequalities.
2. The Committee were informed that the Public Health Outcomes Framework was used as a performance tool to hold the Public Health function to account, and that the overarching target was to reduce the life expectancy differences across Surrey. The team were concentrating on the mandatory services which transferred with them, which included substance misuse, alcohol, and drugs, and this was a universal approach. Additionally, there was the targeted approach through the Supporting Families Programme, and a proposal for staff to be trained to identify the best time to discuss health issues with the families.
3. It was important for Public Health to work with the Family Support Programme as they already had contact with hard to reach families. It was also important for the success of Public Health for them to achieve a targeted approach early so as to ensure long term health benefits.
4. The work of School Nurses was discussed by the Committee, and it was explained their work was both universal and targeted, in that they assessed all children in schools but offered targeted support when there was an identified need.
5. The Committee discussed the issue of behaviour change as it was felt there was enough information available which informed the public of the health risks of smoking, drinking alcohol, not exercising etc. The Acting Director of Public Health agreed there was an abundance of information on healthy living, but that targeted programmes which worked with families were important as it gave people the support they required to make behaviour changes. She went on to explain that the information available was having an effect as there had been an increase in the number of mothers breastfeeding and having their children immunised, in addition to a drop in the number of people smoking.
6. Public Health had begun collaborating with teams across the County Council, with a small team working with the Early Help programme, as it was felt there would be a long term health benefit and they were working towards ... view the full minutes text for item 18/13 |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman explained an updated version of the Forward Work Programme had been circulated to Members at the meeting, along with copies of outstanding recommendations from the now decommissioned Education Select Committee and the Children & Families Select Committee. Members were informed that the vast majority of outstanding recommendations from these Committees had been incorporated into the Children & Education Select Committee Forward Work Programme.
2. Members of the Committee and the Cabinet Member for Schools & Learning requested that the workshop on School Place Planning be rearranged as many could not attend a meeting on 2 October 2013. The Chairman requested officers look into finding an alternative date for this session.
3. The Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Learning suggested the Committee may wish to look at budget monitoring more in the future.
4. Officers explained that they were in discussion with the Head of Commissioning and Development on how the Committee could pursue a piece of work on improving careers information, advice and guidance, as recommended at the last meeting. Members would be updated once more information was known.
5. The Committee discussed organising a Member Reference Group to contribute in the development of Surrey’s strategy for improving the outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and young people.
Recommendations:
None.
Action/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
1. The Committee set up a Member Reference Group to contribute to the development of a strategy to improve outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and young people in Surrey. The membership of this Member Reference Group would be as follows:
· Robert Evans · Mike Goodman · Zully Grant-Duff
2. The Committee would continue to review its Forward Work Programme at each meeting. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on 28 November 2013 at 10am. Minutes: The Committee noted that the next meeting of the Children & Education Select Committee would be on 28 November 2013 at 10am. Members were reminded that there would be a private pre-meeting beginning at 9.30am. |