1 Children and Young Peoples Strategic Partnership Datetime by fdjerue7eeu

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 9

More Info
									                     Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership

     Date/time:   Tuesday 22nd September 2009, 10.30 a.m. to 12.35 p.m.

     Venue:       Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge

     Membership:                                              Attendance     Apologies

     Martin Bacon              representing Secondary Heads   Absent          Yes
     Denise Bangay             Cambs LSC                      Absent          Yes
     Rob Bridge                Fenland DC                     Present
     Tim Bryson                Mental Health Trust            Present
     Wendy Coleman             Cambs Fire and Rescue          Absent          Yes
     Martin Curtis             Cabinet Member for Children    Present
     Karen Daber               Cambridgeshire Constabulary    Present
     Darren Dixon              East Cambs DC                  Phillip Turner covering
     Corrine Garbett           Hunts DC                       Present
     Steve Hampson             South Cambridgeshire DC        Present
     Felicity Schofield        LSCB                           Helen Chrystal covering
     Lynn Hogarth              Young Lives                    Present
     Antoinette Jackson        Cambridge City Council         Absent          Yes
     Gordon Jeyes              CYPS, CCC (Chairman)           Present
     Adrian Loades             CYPS, CCC                      Present
     Jonathan Martin           YMCA                           Present
     Joe McCrossan             representing Primary Heads     Present
     Melanie Monaghan          Centre 33                      Absent          Yes
     Meryl Moore               Addenbrooke’s                  Amanda Cahn covering
     Susan Osborne             Cambridgeshire PCT             Present
     Matthew Ryder             Cambridgeshire Probation       Absent          Yes
     Katherine Salter          Jobcentre Plus                 Absent          Yes
     Angie Stewart             Cambridge Women’s Aid          Present
     Kim Taylor                rep Special School Heads       Present
     Val Taylor                Jobcentre Plus                 Absent          Yes
     Matthew Winn              Cambridgeshire PCT             Absent          Yes

     Also present:

     Tracey Cogan              GO East
     Jane Dobinson             CYPS, CCC
     Matt Johnson              Cambridgeshire Constabulary
     Kate Scott                Cambridgeshire Constabulary
     Brigitte Squire           CCC/Mental Health Trust
     Mary Whitehand            CYPS, CCC

                                        MINUTES

1.   Minutes of previous meeting

     The minutes of the meeting held on 15th July 2009 were confirmed as a
     correct record. The following matters arising were discussed:




                                            1
     •   p2, Proposal for jointly funded Workforce Development Co-ordinator –
         Mary Whitehand would recirculate the job description and costs of this
         post, since no responses had yet been received from partners. Partners
         were asked to respond as soon as possible, to clarify whether the post    MW/All
         could be supported.

     •   p6, Schools Health Education Unit health-related survey – Adrian Loades
         would shortly be arranging a discussion between the County Council, the   AL
         PCT and the Police, to determine whether this survey could in future be
         funded on a partnership basis.

     •   p7, Common Assessment Framework (CAF) – It was suggested that
         Lorraine Lofting should discuss with Mandy Renton how GPs could be        SO/LL
         encouraged to make greater use of the CAF.                                /MR

     •   p10, Fuel poverty – County and City officers had met National Energy
         Action representatives to discuss fuel poverty and would be sharing a     MW
         project plan with partners in November.

2.   Children’s Trust implementation
     Adrian Loades

     The previous CYPSP meeting had discussed proposals for a Children’s Trust
     in Cambridgeshire, to meet both national statute and local requirements to
     reinforce partnership working through Cambridgeshire Together. Adrian
     Loades now presented an update, which included a more detailed model and
     a number of case studies showing how the model was expected to work.

     Partners noted that the Children and Young People Steering Group had
     considered the proposals on 11th September 2009 and had supported them
     in principle, subject to one final meeting of the working group to discuss:

     •   Membership of the groups

     •   How the structures would relate to wider governance arrangements,
         including overview and scrutiny in relevant organisations.

     The Children and Young People Steering Group had also highlighted the
     need to avoid unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Subject to these
     comments, the Steering Group had agreed to disband to enable the
     Children’s Trust Board to form.

     Responding to the update, partners discussed the following points:

     •   Funding – Partners asked how the Trust might require and use funding
         from its constituent organisations Adrian Loades explained that small
         scale funding for specific activities would be discussed by a working
         group. At a more strategic level, joint commissioning and service
         development and the scope for pooled budgets would be driven by the
         Joint Commissioning Group and by the wider Cambridgeshire initiative,
         Making Cambridgeshire Count.


                                              2
•   Governance arrangements – It was noted that these would need to be
    set out formally and agreed by individual partners’ Boards.

•   Every Child Matters thematic groups – Members discussed a number
    of points relating to these groups:

    o Where possible, they would be developed from existing groups, such
      as the 14-19 Partnership Board for Economic Wellbeing.

    o It would be important to ensure that cross-cutting issues and needs
      were appropriately covered. Examples raised included looked after
      children, children with a disability, children affected by domestic
      violence and children affected by adults’ mental health issues or
      disability. Adrian Loades agreed that it would be helpful to map the
      broad range of children’s services and ensure that these were covered
      by the thematic groups, either through representation or agenda items.
      It was agreed that Mary Whitehand would e-mail partners seeking their
      views on the issues to be covered and how they would fit in. Partners MW/All
      were asked to respond within two weeks.

    o The groups should focus on outcomes, assessing their impact as they
      progressed.

    o The relationship between the Be Healthy thematic group and the
      Community Wellbeing Partnership (the Thematic Strategic Partnership
      leading for Cambridgeshire Together on health for people of all ages)
      would need to be kept under review. At present, the Community
      Wellbeing Partnership’s main focus for children and young people was
      on unhealthy weight.

•   Supporting links – Tracey Cogan commended the proposed supporting
    links to the Children’s Trust Board from the Youth Assembly, the Parents’
    and Carers’ Forum and the Trust Development Group. She highlighted
    the need for clear links with the Local Strategic Partnerships. Adrian
    Loades explained that these would be made through the Area
    Partnerships, whose role was currently being developed.

    Adrian Loades and Mary Whitehand would be attending meetings of all of
    the Area Partnerships shortly, to explore the new Trust arrangements. It
    would be important to ensure that the Area Partnerships’ role was
    consistent, whilst recognising local variations. Partners agreed that it
    would be useful for officers to take a template to these meetings as a      MW
    basis for discussion.

In conclusion, partners emphasised that they were also keen to implement
the new arrangements as soon as possible. They:

•   Agreed with the Steering Group that one further meeting of the
    working group should be held



                                         3
     •   Agreed that the CYPSP should be disbanded, if possible in time to
         enable partners’ next meeting to be the first meeting of the
         Children’s Trust Executive

     •   Noted that a report would be taken to Cambridgeshire Together
         setting out the Trust proposals, since the Trust would also be one of
         Cambridgeshire Together’s Thematic Strategic Partnerships.

3.   Inspection of safeguarding and services to looked after children
     Gordon Jeyes

     Gordon Jeyes updated partners on the current inspection of safeguarding
     and services to looked after children, which was running from 14th to 25th
     September 2009. Following on from a meeting with the inspectors that
     morning, he summarised key messages at the end of Week 1. These were
     subsequently set out in a briefing e-mailed to partners, which is attached as
     Appendix 1 to these minutes.

     Gordon Jeyes welcomed the rigour and insight of the inspectors and the
     validity of an unannounced inspection, but expressed concern that the
     methodology being used, which would lead to 34 separate judgements, was
     unwieldy and unhelpful.

     He also noted that the Comprehensive Area Assessment score to be
     published on 25th September 2009 would not be affected by the current
     inspection. Only if the inspectors had identified any major scores would the
     publication of the CAA score have been postponed. As they had not, the
     Children’s Services element of the score would be based on the earlier
     desktop annual assessment.

     Further briefings would be sent to partners at the end of the inspection and
     when the final report was published.

     Councillor Martin Curtis thanked all those who had contributed to the
     inspection to date. Partners discussed the following points:

     •   Suggested that, as the Police did with their inspections, it could be useful
         to ask for cost implications of the inspectors’ recommendations.
         Councillor Martin Curtis and Gordon Jeyes agreed that with the worsening
         financial position, it would be essential to prioritise and where necessary
         to disinvest, being realistic about the scope for continuous improvement.

     •   Emphasised the need to optimise partners’ learning from the inspection,
         especially given the resources and effort contributed to support the
         inspectors’ programme of approximately 100 visits. Gordon Jeyes fully
         supported this view and suggested that the Making Cambridgeshire Count
         launch on 28th September 2009 would provide an excellent opportunity to
         feed in key messages. He also particularly thanked Laura Wilkinson and
         Sam McLaughlin for their work on the inspection and in arranging the
         programme of visits.



                                               4
     •   Noted that a sub-group representing the emerging Children’s Trust would
         be meeting the inspectors that afternoon. People taking part in the
         meeting were invited to consider beforehand whether there were specific
         issues they wished to raise with the inspectors.

     •   Asked whether partners would have a right of reply, since the short notice
         could make it difficult for individuals and organisations to contribute to the
         programme – for example, the voluntary sector had been struggling to find
         a representative for the Children’s Trust session that afternoon. Gordon
         Jeyes agreed that it might be useful for partners to have an independently
         facilitated session, possibly without the local authority present. However,
         he also expressed disappointment that only four of 20 voluntary
         organisations sent written surveys by the inspectors had replied.

     •   Noted that the inspectors had raised some issues to do with partnership
         working between the County Council and the Mental Health Trust.
         Gordon Jeyes would discuss these with Tim Bryson; he commented that              GJ/TB
         he considered them to be national rather than local concerns.

4.   Budget and service-planning 2010/11 – 2014/15
     Adrian Loades

     Adrian Loades presented a paper inviting partners to discuss collectively
     possible means of achieving improved outcomes for children and young
     people in the context of increasingly difficult public sector funding levels. He
     reminded partners that the County Council was expecting a 39% reduction in
     the spending power of Children and Young People’s Services in five years’
     time. Other partners were facing similarly severe cuts. Minor adjustments
     would not be sufficient to meet this challenge; prioritisation and redesign of
     services would be essential, and cuts unavoidable.

     Adrian Loades suggested that there could be three main approaches to
     strengthened partnership working:

     •   Information sharing, through service-specific initiatives such as the
         Children’s Services Mapping Project and wider initiatives such as Making
         Cambridgeshire Count

     •   Changes to the commissioning process and increased joint
         commissioning

     •   Service co-ordination and integration, including formally pooled budgets to
         drive out savings.

     Partners were invited to discuss these points. They made the following
     comments:

     •   Agreed that the increasingly difficult financial climate would make it
         essential for partners to work together closely. Clear prioritisation would
         be also be vital; it would be better for services, both those provided by the
         public and the voluntary sector, to understand as early as possible how


                                                5
    funding would be directed, rather than suffering ‘death by a thousand
    cuts’. For the voluntary sector, early notification that public sector funding
    was to be discontinued might make it possible to seek alternative funding
    from elsewhere.

    Partners noted that the Cambridgeshire Voluntary Sector Infrastructure
    Consortium was already considering how small voluntary sector
    organisations could work together to achieve back office efficiencies
    relating to functions such as payroll and quality assurance.

•   Noted that there was scope to learn from each other’s experiences; for
    example, the Mental Health Trust in developing its care pathways had
    been focussing on increased efficiency.

•   Noted that NHS Cambridgeshire had recently appointed a new Director of
    Strategy, Andy Vowles, who would be working closely with the County
    Council on these issues.

•   Discussed the implications of the forthcoming period of economic austerity
    for public perception of and engagement with services:

       o Personal responsibility would become increasingly important. This
         would require effective public engagement, for Children’s Services
         with both children and young people and with their parents and
         carers.

       o Public expectations would need to be managed. In future it would
         not be possible to deliver the same services in the same way as at
         present; this would be especially apparent to the public in some
         settings, such as schools.

       o Public consultation, such as the second phase of the Place Survey,
         would need to ask the public where they would make cuts, given
         that cuts would be unavoidable.

           However, public responses were not always what partners wanted
           to hear; for example, the Youth Offending Service tended not to be
           seen as a high priority, despite its invaluable preventative role.
           Partners would need to work together to manage messages and
           respond to the public.

           In addition, people in receipt of universal services tended to be the
           most vociferous, whilst those in receipt of targeted services could
           be in greatest need; it would be important to consult effectively with
           hard-to-reach groups.

•   Noted that recent innovations such as parental support advisers,
    children’s centres and the g2g card would need to be evaluated rigorously
    to establish whether they should continue as core services or be
    discontinued.



                                           6
     Partners discussed the actions that the CYPSP might take to address the
     issues raised. It was agreed that it was important for partners to act and that:   AL

     •   The role of the Joint Commissioning Group should be strengthened,
         with this as the main item on their next agenda

     •   Gordon Jeyes and Adrian Loades would liaise with partners on
         emerging budget and service planning proposals

     •   A more detailed exchange between CYPSP members should take
         place in early November, enabling initial work on Making
         Cambridgeshire Count to be taken into account.

5.   ContactPoint
     Jane Dobinson

     Jane Dobinson gave a presentation to partners on the implementation of
     ContactPoint in Cambridgeshire. The slides are available from the County
     Council’s Democratic Services. Three specific actions were requested from          All
     partners – to:

     •   Ensure that senior managers were aware of ContactPoint and the
         National Electronic Common Assessment Framework (NeCAF) and
         understood the benefits

     •   Support designated managers with accreditation and sign-off

     •   Promote the use of ContactPoint and NeCAF as key tools to support
         the children's workforce.

     Partners were asked to ensure that relevant colleagues in their organisations
     were aware of these requests, contacting Jane Dobinson as appropriate:

     Jane Dobinson, Project Development Manager, (01480) 355974
     Jane.Dobinson@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

     Responding to the presentation, partners discussed the following points:

     •   Noted that nationally, the Conservatives were saying that if they came to
         power, they would cancel ContactPoint, even though much of the
         expense of the project had already been committed, with limited savings
         to be achieved if it were abandoned now. Locally, officers were
         proceeding with the project for the time being and would seek to retain its
         benefits locally in some form, even if the national project were
         discontinued.

     •   Noted that the records of those children considered to be most at risk
         would be shielded – their name, date of birth and gender would be visible
         to users of ContactPoint, but no other information, other than an indication
         that the record was shielded. Contact between professionals working with
         these children would be brokered if appropriate by the ContactPoint team.


                                               7
         A very limited number of ContactPoint users would be able to override
         shielding on an emergency basis. Requests newly to shield a record
         would be actioned within 24 hours, ahead of the national guideline of
         seven days.

     •   Noted that the initial rollout of ContactPoint was to the County Council’s
         Children and Young People’s Services and to maintained schools. After
         this, the next stage would be to bring in a small number of users from a
         range of partners. Involving the voluntary sector would present a
         particular challenge, given the rigorous requirements for full accreditation.
         However, partners noted that less rigorous accreditation would be
         required for ‘mediated users’ – partners who rang the County Council and
         asked officers to use ContactPoint on their behalf – which could be a
         useful means of access for smaller organisations.

6.   Performance monitoring
     Mary Whitehand

     Mary Whitehand reported that a formal Big Plan performance monitoring
     report had not been prepared for the first quarter of 2009/10. An informal
     check suggested that progress was being made in most areas. However, a
     key concern related to the numbers of young people not in education,
     employment or training (NEET), which had risen in July 2009:

     •   In East Cambridgeshire by 1.9% as compared with July 2008, 42 young
         people

     •   In Huntingdonshire by 1.3% as compared with July 2008, 62 young
         people.

     In contrast, the numbers of young people who were NEET in Fenland had
     fallen by 0.93% as compared with July 2008, despite the economic downturn,
     demonstrating the benefits of partners’ interventions in the District. Partners
     would now be considering how these could be replicated in other Districts.

8.   Update from Cambridgeshire Together
     Councillor Martin Curtis

     Councillor Martin Curtis reported that Cambridgeshire Together would be
     meeting that afternoon and would be reviewing national indicators relating to
     children and young people’s services, including the NEET figures.
     Cambridgeshire Together had previously expressed concern about teenage
     pregnancy figures, since not as much progress was being made as had been
     hoped, particularly in Huntingdonshire.

9.   Economic downturn

     No additional points were raised under this item.




                                                8
10.   Any other business

      Child poverty

      Angie Stewart reported that she had attended a recent child poverty
      conference in Birmingham. Adrian Loades agreed to discuss with her the          AS/AL
      implications for Cambridgeshire.

      Workforce development event

      Lynn Hogarth reminded partners about the ‘Big Event’, the workforce
      development event taking place on 30th September 2009. She encouraged
      all partners to attend and, if possible, to take part in the CYPSP panel        All
      session at the end of the afternoon, confirming this with Sarah Lees
      beforehand.

      Serious Case Reviews

      Gordon Jeyes updated partners on Cambridgeshire’s four current Serious
      Case Reviews (SCRs), which were receiving varying degrees of media
      attention. He reminded partners that:

      •   An SCR was conducted in the event of an unexplained child death, in
          which abuse or neglect could be a factor. SCRs were instigated by the
          Local Safeguarding Children Board, which was independently chaired;
          Cambridgeshire LSCB’s new Chair, Felicity Schofield, had recently taken
          up post. Further independence was provided by the SCR Panel, which
          was independently chaired, and by the independent authoring of the SCR
          reports.

      •   Cambridgeshire’s unexplained child death rate was statistically as might
          be ‘expected’, although any single unexplained child death was
          unacceptable.

      Partners noted details of the SCRs, covering the death of a baby in 2006, the
      death of two sisters in 2007, the suicide of a young man in 2009 and the
      death of a baby in 2009. Gordon Jeyes commented that it would be
      important for all partners to learn from these SCRs and to acknowledge
      responsibility where appropriate, whilst avoiding placing inappropriate blame
      or seeking explanation where there was none.

11.   Date of next meeting
      All

      The next meeting would be held on Wednesday 25th November 2009 from             All
      10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. in the Swansley Room at South Cambridgeshire
      Hall, Cambourne.




                                               9

								
To top