Agenda and minutes

Councillor B. Kaye made a Personal Declaration of Interest due to his role as Chair of the Kimberworth Park Partnership in relation to item 32 (Families for Change).

There were no members of the public or the press in attendance. 

The Senior Scrutiny Adviser (Scrutiny Services, Legal and Democratic Services, Resources Directorate) advised that the report of the Scrutiny Review into Domestic Abuse had been presented to the Cabinet.  The Cabinet would respond to the Scrutiny Review’s Recommendations within two-months. 

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission held on 18^th September, 2013, were considered. 

In relation to Minute No. 22 (Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report, 2012/2013), an amendment was requested in relation to the section dealing with the Local Safeguarding Children Board’s main areas of concern.  The second bullet point stated that levels of neglect in the Borough were an ‘emerging issue’.  It was requested that this be amended to the levels of neglect were being addressed as a priority following identification in the Ofsted inspection of 2011. 

The Chairperson of the Improving Lives Select Commission thanked the Clerk for the format and content of the minutes from the previous meeting, as they were comprehensive and outlined all of the information considered. 

Resolved: -  That, with the amendment as shown above, the minutes of the previous meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission be agreed as an accurate record for signature by the Chairperson.  

Councillor G. A. Russell welcomed the Families for Change Co-ordinator, the Workforce, Strategy, Planning and Development Manager and the Director of Safeguarding Children and Families (all of the Safeguarding Children and Families, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) to the meeting.  The Officers had been invited to attend the meeting to update the Improving Lives Select Commission on Rotherham’s Families for Change initiative.

Minute No. C23 (Troubled Families Initiative) of the Cabinet meeting held on 20^th June, 2012, provided authorisation for Rotherham to undertake the Central Government’s Troubled Families Initiative.  

The Troubled Families Co-ordinator explained how Rotherham had re-branded the Central Government’s ‘Trouble Families’ initiative to ‘Families for Change’ in order to emphasise the positive aspirations of the programme in Rotherham.  A similar approach had been taken by other local authorities.  No parts of Rotherham’s workstream were delivered under the name ‘Troubled Families’, as the intentions of partnership and co-operation were guiding principles, and all provision was done ‘with’ families, rather than ‘to’ them.  The Troubled Families’ Co-ordinator had retained the job title to ensure clarity and accountability to the funding stream. 

Rotherham has been asked to work with 730 families during the three year programme (April 2012 – April 2015); at this stage of the programme 415 families were working with Families for Change, including both the adults and children within the family. 

Families were identified as being eligible to work with the programme through a number of criterion: -

• Education – children in the family being classed as ‘persistently absent’ with attendance figures of less than 85%, or who had been temporarily excluded three or more times in a year, or permanently excluded;
• Crime and Anti-social behaviour as factors in the family;
• Adult/s in the family claiming unemployed Benefits.

If a family displayed evidence of all three factors, then Families for Change would engage them through family support.  In accordance with the Troubled Families Financial Framework, Rotherham had also elected to apply a local filter to concentrate efforts in the eleven most deprived neighbourhoods, and to identify families affected by factors including poor mental health, drug and alcohol misuse and domestic abuse. 

Children and Young People’s Services Continuum of Need, shows the services and provision available from the ‘Universal’ to ‘Acute’ stages was referred to.  The majority of the families that were involved in Families for Change were in the middle ‘Vulnerable’ and ‘Complex’ stages. 

A map of the Borough highlighted the incidence of contacts with the Families for Change and how there was a high correlation to the eleven most deprived neighbourhoods. 

Key aspects of the provision through Families for Change were the Family Intervention Factors, including: -

·        A dedicated worker, dedicated to a family to ‘grip their problems’;

·        Practical ‘hands on’ support;

·        A persistent, assertive and challenging approach;

·        Considering the family as a whole – gathering the intelligence;

·        Common purpose and agreed action: All professionals working with a family were aware of the other agencies involved;

·        The Family Common Assessment Framework in place for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Strategic Lead, Educated Other Than At School (School Effectiveness Services, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate). 

The report outlined the existing provision and the imperatives on the Local Authority and its partners to re-shape provision to better meet the needs of the children on the periphery and outside of mainstream education.  The Charlie Taylor report on improving alternative provision and the School Funding Reforms (2013-14) were taken into account in the proposals. 

The Cabinet had agreed on 16^th October, 2013, that the proposed structure of streamlining the Local Authority’s existing five registered Pupil Referral Units to two should be supported (Minute No. C93, Proposed Restructure of RMBC Pupil Referral Units). 

The submitted report outlined the proposed structure for Alternative Provision across the Borough.  The report outlined the proposed re-structured Pupil Referral Units: -

·         GCSE courses would be available at both Units, along with appropriate vocational courses;

·         Links to Further Education providers would be in place to help with planning for young peoples’ future pathways;

·         Fully qualified teachers would work in both of the proposed Units;

·         The Management Committees of the Pupil Referral Units would ensure appropriate representation from all partners and ‘host’ school headteachers, with the aim of increasing accountability;

·         Strong partnerships would be in place between the Local Authority, Schools, Barnardo’s and CAMHS and so on;

·         Primary provision was still under review;

·         Premises strategy;

·         From 1^st April, 2013, the Department for Education’s School Funding Regulations stated that Pupil Referral Units should have a Delegated Budget allocated from the Dedicated Schools’ Grant;

·         It was proposed that a commissioning structure would exist whereby school’s would be able to commission places within the Pupil Referral Units, with appropriate funding being accessed from the High Needs Block and Pupil Premium funding as necessary, on a pro-rata’d basis between the home school and pupil referral unit if appropriate;

·         A review of the existing placements would also be undertaken to ensure that they were appropriate and meeting the needs of the individual. 

Discussion ensued and the following points were raised and clarified: - 

·         The length of time that children were accessing alternative provision;

·         The premises strategy;

·         Working with qualified teachers and setting up a protocol between Schools and Units to agree transition back to mainstream schools;

·         What were the risks of schools not buying-back?  This could lead to reduced income, as could an increase in the numbers of permanent exclusions from Schools.  Protocols for working with academy schools and their governing bodies.  PRUs had never been intended to work as permanent units for young people.  The Local Authority was inspected on safeguarding, Children Missing Education and part-time timetables of its most vulnerable pupils;   

·         Mitigation of risks and uncertainties;

·         Consultation with all Councillors and the impact on Councillors’ Wards: they need to understand what is being proposed. 

·         Financial sustainability of the proposed model;

·         Moral responsibility of all schools towards all of Rotherham’s young people; 

·         Improving all stakeholders’ opinions of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Principal Education Transport Officer (Transport Unit, Streetpride, Environment and Development Services) introduced a report that outlined proposed changes to the Local Authority’s Home to School Transport Policy, whereby the Local Authority’s duty to provide free transport to and from school for eligible children was set out. 

The Principal Officer explained that the policy was updated annually and presented the proposed revised policy from September 2013. He also explained the procedural issues that had led to a delay in the 2013 policy being circulated; the Department for Transport had issued the revised guidance in March, 2013, but this had been subject to legal challenges and withdrawn causing the delay. 

There was no change to eligibility criteria in the 2013 policy.  The draft 2013 policy marked in red where there were proposed changes which mainly related to clarification, and included a new section relating to the raised participation age. 

Discussion ensued and the following issues were raised and clarified: -

·        Changing logistical and social factors – new housing developments, shortage of school places in particular areas of the borough creating the need for families to travel to schools at a further distance to their home, reduced household incomes;

·        Section 2.6 (V) - problems with mileage and safety of routes in a number of specific cases across the Borough;

·        Shortest route sometime had issues relating to the narrowness and condition of the causeway, alternative routes being unacceptable and passing other schools along the route;

·        Assessment of safe walking routes.

Due to the number of specific issues raised, the Chairperson asked that they be raised with the Principal Education Transport Officer directly outside of the meeting. 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the proposed amendments to the draft Home to School Transport Policy (September 2013) be noted. 

(2)  That the draft policy be referred to the Cabinet Member for final approval as appropriate. 

·         Wednesday 18^th December, 2013, to start at 2.00 p.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall. 

Resolved: - That the next meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission take place on Wednesday 18^th December, 2013, to start at 2.00 p.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall.