Agenda and minutes

To agree the Council’s procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be agreed.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nasim Ali and Stephen Stark. Councillor Maria Higson was attending as a substitute member for Councillor Stark.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Samata Khatoon.

Apologies for absence were also received from the Cabinet Member for Young People, Equalities and Cohesion, Councillor Abdul Hai.

With regard to Item 9 on the agenda, Councillor Maria Higson declared for reasons of transparency that she was a member of the Corporate Parenting Board. This was not considered a prejudicial interest and she would participate in the discussion on the item.

The Chair made the following announcement: “In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record this meeting, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting is being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available upon request.

If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to having your contributions recorded and broadcast, including video when switched on, and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.”

There were no deputations.

To note the minutes of the informal meeting held on Tuesday 14^th December 2021. Minutes to be agreed at the next formal meeting of the committee.  

The minutes of the informal meeting held on 14^th December 2021 were noted.

There were no notifications of urgent business.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting People

This report sets out the findings, key messages, and recommendations of the Young Inspectors’ inspection, of Camden’s Young People Pathways services. The inspection started in August 2021 and concluded in October 2021 with the closure of the consultation period with young people and Pathways staff.

The Young Inspectors team consisted of five care leavers aged 18-23 who conducted research into views of young people receiving support from Pathways services. The research also included meetings with professionals involved in Camden Pathways and supporting young people.

The aim of the inspection was to find out about young people’s experiences of the support services provided by the Pathways and to identify what changes and improvements they would like to recommend for the service. We also invited staff from Pathways, Camden social workers and Personal advisors to give their feedback about the support services for young people.

The main aim of the Young Inspectors’ report was:

• to find out about the experience care leavers have had, of the service

• to develop ideas for improvements, based on suggestions from young people, Children’s Safeguarding and Social Work (CSSW) and Pathways staff.

• to inform the commissioning strategy to ensure that the Pathways services continue to meet the needs of Camden’s young people

• to set up a Young People Pathways Board as an advisory group to review and plan the development of Pathways services, to inform commissioning and to be part of the procurement process.

The conclusions that emerged from the Young Inspectors inspection are given as a set of seven key recommendations for Camden’s Pathways services

Equality Impact Assessment Appendix - to follow

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Supporting People and to the Equalities Impact Assessment in the supplementary agenda.

Elzbieta Chandrasena, Senior Development Officer, introduced the report. She explained that every year a team of young inspectors carried out an inspection of an aspect of children and young people’s services. The latest one had been undertaken for the Young People’s Pathway, which provided supported accommodation for young people aged 16-25. The panel had been recruited from young people who had formerly been service users and thus could apply their experience to the process.

The Committee heard from one of the Young Inspectors, Kiana Brown. She explained that the Young Inspectors had considered information from questionnaires sent out to care leavers and staff; had interviewed professionals working in the service; heard from online focus groups of service users; and engaged in some desktop research. They had come up with seven recommendations.

Ms Brown said that one of the recommendations that she thought was particularly important was for Pathways providers to provide “golden time activities” – i.e. enriching activities which young people could participate in. She said that when she was younger she had been on a camping trip to Iceland, which she had particularly enjoyed.

Attendees welcomed the report and thanked the Young Inspectors for the time they had spent on the inspection.

Members noted the recommendation on mental health support and asked for more information about what support was provided and what the key concerns were. Ms Chandrasena said that the service worked with the Tavistock to provide mental health support, and that there was a need – particularly for young unaccompanied asylum seekers – to provide trauma-informed support. Service users had expressed the view that there were difficulties in handling the transition when they moved from child mental health services to adult ones when they turned 18.

Members asked whether the recommendations were surprising to officers and if an action plan to implement them would be produced.

Rashida Baig, the Director of Children’s Safeguarding and Social Work, said that officers had not been surprised by the recommendations but they drew their attention to the need to focus on certain areas. She said that an action plan would be presented to the Corporate Parenting Board.

A member asked Ms Brown if there had been changes in the service over the years from previous initiatives. She said that there had been changes in accommodation providers and some other small changes; but young people faced similar issues in terms of how they were dealt with by professionals, the need for continuity of care and for good relationships with key workers.

Ms Chandrasena said that the service was trying to maintain continuity of social workers to improve the relationship that service users developed with them.

A member asked Ms Brown if there was a particular change she would like to see that had not been covered in the report. She said that she would like to see Pathways  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of Executive Director Supporting People

This report sets out the annual report on corporate parenting and provides an overview of the achievement, progress and challenges in meeting the needs of Camden’s looked after children and care leavers in 2020/21, who are placed both in borough and outside the borough. The report also sets out the priorities for 2021/22.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Supporting People.

Rashida Baig presented the report to the Committee. She highlighted the following points:

·         There had been a reduction in the number of Looked-After Children (LAC) over the past five years, although there had been an increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

·         Camden’s rate of LAC per 10,000 children was lower than in other authorities which were considered its statistical comparators.

·         This indicated that preventative work had paid off.

·         85% of LAC were from BAME backgrounds.

·         Efforts were being made to encourage kinship carers.

·         There was improved performance in terms of arranging adoptions, although it often took time to match families.

·         Covid had led to court delays and to delays in some assessment processes which were better carried out face-to-face.

·         The Council had succeeded in recruiting staff for children’s social work roles and there were very few agency staff – which improved the continuity of service clients received.

Councillors Angela Mason and Jenny Headlam-Wells spoke about their experience as co-chairs of the Corporate Parenting Board. Councillor Mason said that she had seen the virtual school go from strength-to-strength. Councillor Headlam-Wells said she had welcomed the chance being on the Board had given her to hear the contributions of young people.

In discussion, members made the following points:

·         There was a need to recruit more BAME foster carers, given the demographics of LAC in the borough.

·         There was concern about the low number of LAC obtaining apprenticeships

·         The improvement in educational attainment for LAC was welcomed and members enquired about the reasons for this.

·         Questions were asked about the process of placing children with kinship carers and how this was counted in the statistics.

Martin Pratt, Executive Director Supporting People, said that the figures on educational attainment were affected by the small sample size of LAC undertaking examinations each year. Teacher-assessed grades, which had been used in 2020 and 2021 due to covid, were also likely to produce better results for some vulnerable children as teachers were aware of contextual information.

Ms Baig said that the law required local authorities to seek to place children with kinship carers where possible. Where this was done by means of special guardianship orders, the children were not counted as LAC. Some of the fall in the number of LAC was therefore due to children being placed with relatives under special guardianship orders.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report and the comments above be noted.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families

The report accompanies the Camden Education Strategy to 2030, titled Building Back Stronger. The work has been led by a Strategy Board made up of external education experts and senior officers from the Council and Camden Learning, co-chaired by Councillor Angela Mason CBE, the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families, and Professor Christine Gilbert CBE, Independent Chair of Camden Learning. The Board was supported by a Stakeholder Group, which included headteachers, governors and Inigo Woolf, CEO, London Diocesan Board for Schools.

A final version of Building Back Stronger strategy is attached at Appendix A, which has been amended to take account of the results of the formal, six-week public consultation held during the autumn.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families.

Councillor Mason presented her report and highlighted a number of points:

·         There was a shared determination among those involved in education in Camden to respond to the problems caused by Covid.

·         They wanted to see children in Camden become happy, engaged and inquiring citizens of the future.

·         There was good practice in many Camden schools and this could be spread by collaborative working between them.

·         Schools were alive to issues of social justice and climate change.

·         Christine Gilbert (Chair of Camden Learning) would be heading the implementation board for the strategy.

Members queried the accountability for the strategy. Christine Gilbert said items in the action plan would have a name by them as the person who would be leading on that issue. Ms Gilbert added that the strategy was not a static document and would be reviewed regularly.

A co-opted member welcomed the report but expressed concern about whether financial resources would be available to implement it. The view was also expressed that there needed to be more mention of children with Special Educational Needs and how to further their inclusion in the education system.

Members said that they would like to see links between the education strategy and the health and wellbeing strategy. Officers said that links were being made between the two. Jon Abbey, the Director of Camden Learning, added that one way this was being done was through teaching about cooking and nutrition in schools.

Queries were raised about school attendance. Mr Abbey said that Camden schools had had a high level of absence even before Covid and Covid had increased this further. It was a matter of concern for the authority.

A member also mentioned what she thought was the “forgotten third” of pupils who did not get good GCSE results. She asked that efforts be made to ensure this group was not left behind.

Members paid tribute to Councillor Mason’s work on her portfolio in her 10 years as a Cabinet Member.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report and the comments above be noted.

Report of the Director of Camden Learning

This report provides a summary and update on the position of exclusion data across Camden schools over the last three years (including annualised data 2020/21).  In addition, to the exclusion position, the report also provides an update on progress implementing the Exclusions Panel recommendations.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Camden Learning.

Jon Abbey spoke to his report and highlighted the following points:

·         This report was following on from the 2018 Scrutiny Panel report on school exclusions.

·         There was a target of zero permanent exclusions.

·         Peer-to-peer inclusive reviews were taking place at secondary schools.

·         A vulnerability matrix was being developed.

·         There had been work with the Somali community to encourage parent understanding of school disciplinary processes, in light of concerns raised by the 2018 Panel about the over-representation of children of Somali origin in the exclusion statistics.

·         There was trauma-informed practice taking place at a number of schools, to enable schools to better deal with pupils whose behaviour might reflect trauma they had undergone.

·         Two-thirds of children who were excluded were disadvantaged children, defined as those covered by pupil premium.

The Chair expressed concern about the exclusion of children during the pandemic, as she thought this might leave them trapped in difficult home circumstances. Officers said that they did make arrangements for alternative provision for children who had been excluded during this time, to ensure that education was provided to them.  

Officers added that, although the Local Authority was clear about its zero exclusion target, decisions on exclusions had to be made by schools depending on the individual circumstances and the safety of staff and other children.

Co-opted members expressed the view that alternative provision might suit some children better. However, there was concern about children with SEN being excluded disproportionately because of a lack of understanding of their behaviour and conditions.

Officers said that there was not clear data available on exclusions of SEN pupils, and that they intended to improve data-gathering on this point.

Attendees who had served on the Scrutiny Panel suggested that an informal meeting be held where they could ask further questions of officers and enquire into the report in more detail.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report and the comments above be noted.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting People 

This report sets out the work programme for the municipal year 2021/22 for the committee’s consideration. The committee will continue to be provided with an updated report on their future work programme at each meeting, for their consideration.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Supporting People.

Members noted that there would be one remaining meeting of the Scrutiny Committee this municipal year. Martin Pratt said that it would be considering the findings of the Youth Review, the Achievement and Standards report, the Annual Health Report on Children and Families and considering the Cabinet’s Revenue and Council Tax report.

Councillor Kelly noted that the 1^st March date for the meeting clashed with the Resources & Corporate Performance Scrutiny Committee, of which she was also a member, and asked that an alternative date be explored for the meeting.

RESOLVED –

THAT the work programme be noted.

The Children, Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee is

asked to note that the next meeting will take at place at 6.30pm on

Tuesday 1 March 2022.

The date scheduled for the next meeting was 1^st March 2022.

There were no other business.