Agenda item

The Lead Scrutiny Directors of the Commission to outline the service areas that form part of the commission.

The Assistant City Mayor for Education introduced the item welcoming old and new members. She noted it was good to relook at where the commission was and what officers bring to the commission.

The Strategic Director for Social Care and Education welcomed members and stated that ir was good to see the work within each department and a break down across the Children, Young People and Education portfolio. He advised that he was the Joint Strategic Director for Social Care and Education with the ability to think across line supports, to maximise support across the areas.

The Director of Education and SEND gave an overview of what her services cover and the role of scrutiny in these areas in these areas using the slides as attached with the agenda. In addition, it was noted that there had been a lot of changes to early years entitlement for families, as well as around breakfast clubs. Work was being overseen in relation to wrap around childcare, including before and after school care, with both capital and revenue funding used to support its development. A wide range of work was undertaken across all areas relating to children accessing education from early years to school and college. Efforts were focused on ensuring there were enough places available, that they could be accessed by those who needed them, and that the best possible support was provided within those settings.

The Director of Children’s Social Care, Early Help and Prevention outlined the seven service areas under Children’s Social Care and Early help as set out in the slides attached to the agenda. He further added that some issues were government led and that we worked also with charities and organisations. He added that with regard to safeguarding, there were regulatory expectations with independent oversight from reviewing officers. Children’s services areas were also judged by Ofsted and other regulatory inspectors.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• It was queried how many of the 600 staff were funded through the High Needs Block, and what percentage of the block was used to fund the body, noting that not all were funded from it. Further information was to be circulated.
• Questions were raised about which team would be responsible for supporting schools that do not have SEND support in place, particularly if a school were to decline a large number of placements due to insufficient SEND provision. It was confirmed that Heads of Service would follow up in such cases.
• Clarification was sought on why adventure playgrounds had been discontinued and commissioned.
• Adventure playgrounds had never been formally commissioned or part of the delivered services but had instead received grant funding in previous years. The last year of funding from the Local Authority had now passed, and a working group had been established, with a decision taken back in February.
• A question was raised as to why there were fewer looked after children compared to children supported by children in need teams. It was noted that there were more children on child protection plans than in looked after care.
• Concerns were expressed that only having one multidisciplinary team within Children and Families Services could reduce efficiency, particularly when dealing with children’s behaviours and placement moves.
• It was highlighted that feedback from foster carers informed the level of support needed, and that in-house foster carers were provided with support, while private providers were expected to fund that support themselves.
• A question was asked about whether a report existed evaluating the efficiency of the Family Service. Officers agreed to locate the relevant minutes and report from a previous meeting where the service had been discussed and circulate.
• The structure of the service was acknowledged as being very in-depth, with recognition given to the day-to-day work of dedicated practitioners who were committed to the children they supported.
• Clarification was sought on how the Emergency Duty Team (EDT) functioned outside of regular hours. The EDT handled emergency calls, often from police or hospitals, checking records and attending as necessary. Examples included cases where a young person was arrested and could not return home, or when emergency services found an injured child. The EDT would coordinate next steps to safeguard the child and ensure smooth handover to daytime teams.
• It was noted that the EDT was run by separate staff, who did not always have the same access to training and development. However, their varied shift patterns enabled a better quality of response and stronger support mechanisms.

AGREED:

1.    That the presentation be noted.

2.    That the minutes from the previous meeting on Efficiency of the Family Service be circulated.