49.1     The minutes of the meeting on the 19 July 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

49.2     Members noted that John Kyffin, co-opted on to the committee representing the Clifton Diocese, had informed Democratic Services that the Bishop and the Clifton Diocesan Trustees have recently re-organised how the Clifton Diocese co-ordinates its Catholic Schools in light of the growing number of Catholic Secondary and Primary Schools that have become Academies in the last year or so. They have set up an 'umbrella 'limited company to oversee the Academies supplemented by representatives of the various areas where necessary; and to avoid undue duplication they have abolished the Schools Committee of which he was a member representing Gloucestershire Catholic Schools. This means that Mr Kyffin was no longer able to be a member of this committee.

49.3     The committee thanked Mr Kyffin for his work on the committee and asked that a letter of thanks be sent to him.

The committee to receive a presentation.

 50.1    Eugene O’Kane, Families First Programme Manager, gave a presentation to the committee informing members of the new Families First initiative. (For information - the presentation slides were included in the minute book.) 

50.2     The committee was informed that Families First was the local name for the national Troubled Families programme. Of the estimated 120,000 troubled families in the country DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) has given Gloucestershire an indicative number of 900 families to work with. The factors used by the DCLG to define these families were:

Þ            An adult on out of work benefit

Þ            Children with 15%+ school absence

Þ            Family members involved in crime and antisocial behaviour

Þ            Cause high costs to the public purse

There was an option to use local discretion to include other issues e.g. mental health, drug and alcohol misuse, domestic abuse. The expectation was that we would be working with families that we already knew well. The aim of this programme was to change the trajectory for these families and change the way that services were delivered to them.

50.3     This programme built on the knowledge and experience developed through other initiatives such as Total Place, which demonstrated the importance of taking a multi disciplinary approach and identifying a key worker for the family. Members also heard that this programme would draw on the good practice developed through the budget holding lead professional (BHLP) work and the common assessment framework (CAF).

50.4     It was recognised that the aim of the families’ first initiative would be to build on family strengths and work with the local community to build up support networks for families.   

50.5     Officers explained that in order to make things clearer for parents, a key worker would be appointed to each family in order to build a trusted relationship, this role would be pivotal to the success of the programme.  It was explained that the key worker would have access to a local commissioning budget to purchase services for individual families based on their assessment of need. 

50.6     Members were informed that some of the funding from DCLG would be used to fund some additional key workers and a practice development manager, whose role would include sharing best practice and providing supervision to the key worker(s), who would be undertaking a demanding role. 

50.7     It was evident that the Government wanted a stronger emphasis on families feeling more in control of the services available to support them.  This was reflected in the view that for many parents getting support for their child was challenging. Officers explained that improved early identification and intervention was crucial.

50.8     The committee noted that multi agency groups in each district were reviewing the families they were working with and were identifying staff to approach families who would benefit from the programme.  It was evident that this approach would vary across the county and would undoubtedly reflect local need.  Officers informed the committee that initial indications showed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

51.1     Jo Grills, Operations Director for Education, Learning & Libraries presented the report.  John Reilly, Headteacher of Gloucester Academy was also in attendance in order to inform the committee of how Gloucester Academy supported vulnerable pupils.

51.2     It was noted that school funding reforms had resulted in centrally held Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for the support and expertise currently provided through the Race, Equality and Diversity Service (READS) being delegated to maintained schools from 1 April 2013.  Members were informed that funding was already delegated to academies.

51.3     On 24 October 2012 Cabinet recommended the development and implementation of proposals for a new reduced core service which would be in place even if all schools were academies.

51.4     A detailed commissioning brief has been drawn up for this service setting out the key outcomes and providing a service specification. The key objective is that children and young people achieve their educational potential and that the education gap is narrowed. The service would also work to ensure that schools were clear about their responsibilities.

51.5     It was explained that the Pupil Referral Service (PRS) budget to support pupils at risk of exclusion would also be delegated to schools.  Pupil Referral Units (PRU) would be formally established as schools with delegated funding to educate permanently excluded pupils from 1 April 2013.  It was noted that Schools had been asked to commit to buying back an early intervention service from the PRU school. 

51.6     Members were informed that the majority of secondary schools had agreed to ‘buy back’ support from the PRUs, however only a small minority of primary schools had taken up the offer so far.  The authority was considering how it could best support schools to achieve early intervention as it was hoped that this was the best way in which to prevent exclusions further down the child’s education career path.

51.7     Mr Reilly informed the committee that Gloucester Academy had a high number of children (30%) with English as a second language.  The committee was informed that previously the Academy had used the READS service, and had viewed it as a good service. However, Gloucester Academy had decided to take this service in house as by directly employing staff Mr Reilly was better able to support pupils. The in-house support worked with the school’s timetable rather than relying on when READS staff were available to offer support. Pupil attendance management was also now in-house and this had made a big improvement. Mr Reilly informed the committee that this direct ownership gave him better control over resources, and enabled the service to be designed to match the needs of the children in the academy.

51.8     Mr Reilly explained that the academy still worked with the authority to manage exclusions and did buy into the PRS. He also informed members that there was a dedicated hub at the academy to accommodate young people who needed respite and where they could be worked with in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.1     Cathy Griffiths, Head of Quality presented the report. She also introduced Helen White, Team Manager based in Gloucester; Jane Bee, Safeguarding Development Officer; and Pete Harwood, ICS Project Manager, who were attending the meeting to inform and engage members on this matter.

52.2     The Head of Quality explained that the role of the Team Manger was vital, as social work was about continued development and training.  It was noted that many mangers used E-Learning applications, team meetings and the use of reflective practice for team development.

52.3     Helen White advised members that a considerable amount of time was dedicated to individual supervisory sessions, which included workload management and staff development issues.  She explained that she had a duty to emotionally support her team and ensure that they felt valued in their roles.   It was noted that some cases, particularly those relating to child protection, could be distressing and staff needed to be able to discuss the issues with their manager. 

52.4     Members agreed that Social care was a challenging area of work and senior managers needed to be aware of the challenges facing frontline staff, as the service demand and provision was constantly changing. 

52.5     In response to a question, officers explained that sufficient administrative staff was a key factor in the effective running of the team and it’s service delivery.    They felt that it was a role which should not be undervalued.  It was noted that administrative staff were also subject to the same detail relating to cases and as such also required emotional support. 

52.6     Members requested to know if the team had been involved with the “Families First” concept.   It was noted that Helen White was a member of the board who had identified families for the initial programme.  Members were informed that Social Care officers were having discussions with those families identified. 

52.7     The committee was informed that the pressures on staff varied across the county depending upon the level of demand and may need to be resourced accordingly.  It was reported that Gloucester City had the highest proportion (40%) of issues and as such many of the families would be involved in the “Families First” project.  The committee agreed that it was necessary to get level of support right, to prevent future demands on the service.

52.8     Jane Bee, Safeguarding Development Officer explained that her role included training and audits on behalf of the GSCB, as well as the management of allegations against staff working with children.  It was noted that the service had published a safeguarding practice reflection framework, which encompassed core minimum standards for individuals and group settings. 

52.9     Pete Harwood, Project Manager, gave a brief introduction to the new Liquid Logic Computer System .  It was evident that the system enabled officers to manage their work loads better.  The Head of Quality informed members that the Project Manager was an IT professional who worked on the floor to help overcome any issues which arose, as such the system was proving  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

53.1     The committee was informed that officers were pleased with progress against targets and that we were now seeing sustained improvements.  Officers explained that the key achievements detailed in the report were small but substantial.  It was noted that although GCC performed well in comparison to neighbouring authorities, officers prescribed a note of caution as the figures were increasing rapidly. 

53.2     It was reported that the attainment of Free School Meals (FSM) and SEN pupils at KS2, in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving L4 or above in English and Maths had improved and the gaps had narrowed.  For FSM pupils the gap had narrowed from 24% in 2011 to 21% in 2012 and for SEN pupils the gap had narrowed from 52%in 2010/11 to 49% in 2011/12.

53.3     In response to a question regarding child protection conferences, it was explained that the reduction in attendance was due to a member of staffing being on compassionate leave.  Officers explained that children were not at risk, however there was a need to be more strategic in the deployment of staff.  Consequently, the team were actively looking to overcome this issue. 

54.1     The Finance Manager Children and Young People gave a full presentation of this report. It was explained that the current forecast of the year end revenue position as at September 2012 for non-DSG funded services was an underspend position of £2 million, which equated to 2.2% of the budget. 

54.2     In response to a question it was noted that the non-DSG underspend had increased between the forecast in July – September by £437,000.  It was explained that the major reason for the change was due to an underspend reported against external agency placements partly offset by an increase in the cost of the in-house foster care allowances and a review of staffing costs in Children in Care teams. 

54.3     With regard to meeting the challenge, members were pleased to note that the project was forecast to deliver £0.6 million of savings in excess of the 2012/13 target, this figure was not included in the current forecast.  It was explained that the meeting the challenge savings would be transferred to the transformation reserve. 

54.4     Members were pleased to note that home to school transport had an under-spend of £1 million (6.8% of the budget), which reflected variances identified in the outturn position for 2011/12 which were continuing in to 2012/13.  In response to a question, members were informed that the underspend was due to policy changes which had recently been implemented, a review of SEN and mainstream routes and a lower inflation uplift on contracts than provided for. 

55.1   The Lead Commissioner for Capital gave a full presentation of this report.  Members were informed that at the end of October 2012, the total spend for the financial year was 6% ahead of schedule at £15.094 million compared to a target of £14.224 million.  It was noted that the programme of works was progressing well and no major delays or overspends were reported. 

55.2   It was noted that work was underway to draft the schools capital programme for 2013/14.  Officers explained that Central Government had not given any indication of the value of capital that the Authority should expect.  Officers were expecting to receive a similar level to 2012/13, which was approximately £14 million. 

55.3   Members were informed that due to a change in regulations for the Dedicated Schools Grant 2013/14, the Local Authority would no longer be able to withhold any funding to contribute to a capital maintenance programme.  In response to a question, it was explained that funding would be devolved directly to schools.  Consequently, it had been proposed that the schools contribution to centrally funded capital maintenance projects would be increased from the existing 10%.  It was noted that contributions in the region of 20-40% would be considered. 

The committee agreed to delegate the report to the Chairman.