Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from any members of the Sub-Committee.

Apologies were received from Councillor Holly Ramsey, for who Councillor Samir Dwesar was in attendance as substitute, Councillor Tamar Barrett, for who Councillor Louis Carserides was in attendance as substitute.

Apologies were received from Paul O'Donnell (Voting Parent Governor Representative).

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2024 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 16 July 2024 were

approved as an accurate record.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting. If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they must urgently complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs at the meeting –

• Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the room unless granted a dispensation.
• Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.
• Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.

For the Sub-Committee to receive an update on the Children, Young People and Educations Directorate’s transformation work, including an update on the indicative outcomes from the diagnostic work of the Council’s strategic delivery partner.

The Sub-Committee considered a paper set out on pages 21 to 26 of the agenda, which provided an update on the Children, Young People and Educations Directorate’s (CYPE) transformation work. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement introduced them item followed by an overview of the report by IMPOWER representatives.

The Chair asked whether there were examples of IMPOWER delivering improved outcomes for children at lower costs for councils in other metropolitan areas in the country. The IMPOWER representative explained that they had worked with a number of authorities across the country, including London, and that the names of these councils could be provided if requested. The Chair asked if there were examples of IMPOWER specifically delivering improved outcomes at reduced costs for these councils, and was informed that additional information on this could be provided on request. The IMPOWER representative clarified that the figures included at 3.21 of the report were selected as they were included in IMPOWER’s latest ‘Annual Impact Report’.

The Chair asked how confident IMPOWER were that they would be able to deliver similar results in Croydon to the figures included in 3.21 of the report.

The Sub-Committee heard that IMPOWER were confident in their experience, tools, and tested approach. The IMPOWER representative explained that they were made more confident by the way that services, the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People and senior officers had welcomed IMPOWER into the Council and the apparent appetite for working together on transformation and improvement. Members heard that the contract with IMPOWER would ensure that they were held accountable for delivering desired improvements.

The Chair asked how much oversight the CYPE Transformation Improvement Oversight Group (TIOG) would have over IMPOWER and what this would look like on a day-to-day basis. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the TIOG met monthly to review the CYPE Transformation Programme and were responsible for signing off all of IMPOWER’s agreed key milestones. The TIOG would feed up to the Corporate Management Team and Mayor’s Advisory Board; underneath the TIOG sat a number of reference groups that would look at and monitor specific areas, such as a ‘Valuing Care’ and ‘Modelling Demand and Service Redesign’ groups. Members heard that a contract monitoring group had also been established. The Sub-Committee were informed that some of IMPOWER’s fee was subject to the successful delivery of transformation and improvement.

The Vice-Chair asked for some explanation of what a typical agenda for a TIOG meeting would look like. The Head of Performance & Business Improvement explained that the group looked at the whole of transformation across the CYPE Directorate; the work of IMPOWER was on every agenda and included a progress update, a presentation and a report. Members asked if the TIOG had any independent members, and the Director of Education explained that this was an internal meeting chaired by the Corporate Director of CYPE, but that this may be reviewed at a later date to include external partners should it be thought that this would better serve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31/24

For the Sub-Committee to receive a presentation providing an update on the Family Hubs Transformation Programme.

The Sub-Committee received a presentation providing an update on Croydon’s Family Hub transformation programme. The Director of Education, Family Hub Transformation Lead, and Team Manager (Education) introduced the item and went through the presentation at Appendix A, including a video, and feedback from a member of the Parent Carer Panel.

The Sub-Committee asked how feedback from service users was being collected and used to drive improvements in the implementation of the Family Hubs. The Family Hub Transformation Lead highlighted that the Council was still on a ‘transformation journey’ for Family Hubs, but explained that currently anecdotal feedback and DfE returns were being used. Members heard that an evaluation framework was being developed, and that this would sit beside an outcomes framework, to create a formal mechanism to collate and enact changes as a result of feedback. The Service Manager for Children's Centres, Parenting and Parenting Relationships added that feedback had been gathered from service users and that service specifications were being scrutinised at the Parent Carer Panel to ensure that the voice of parents and carers were heard.

The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People explained they had attended the launch of the first Family Hub and had been impressed by the wide range of partners as well as the large number of parents and children. The Cabinet Member praised the work being done on Family Hubs and encouraged Sub-Committee Members to visit the Woodland’s Children Centre Hub.

Members asked how Family Hubs were being publicised, noting low social media followers for Facebook and Instagram Family Hubs accounts. The Family Hub Transformation Lead responded that social media was being used, alongside leaflets in public buildings, a newsletter and promotion through Council partners. It was acknowledged that there was more to do in this area and it was stated that funding would be used to bring on board someone to develop a Family Hubs communication strategy. The Service Manager for Children's Centres, Parenting and Parenting Relationships highlighted that Woodlands was an existing Children’s Centre and that the programme would look to build on the existing services and reputation of the Centre to promote the Family Hub. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee on attendance numbers at Family Hubs, Members heard that this could be provided outside of the meeting if requested.

The Director of Education explained that there was a Family Hubs Oversight Group, including Health, the Community and Voluntary Sector (VCS) and other partners, which shared the responsibility of promoting Hubs. The Sub-Committee asked whether Health Visitors were promoting Family Hubs, and heard that this would be the case and would be further developed to ensure anyone delivering services to families would be aware of, and promoting, Family Hubs.

The Vice-Chair noted the end of DfE funding in March 2025 and asked how confident officers were that the three Hubs would be established in this time, and whether any funding would be available after March 2025. The Director of Education explained that it was the aim to open two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/24

For the Sub-Committee to receive the Early Help, Children’s Social Care and Education Dashboard.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 27 to 36 of the agenda, which provided the Early Help, Children’s Social Care and Education

Dashboard, and updated additional ‘Red’ indicators reviewed at the previous meeting.

On M36, the Head of Social Work with Families explained that this was due to the high number of children Croydon was working with in comparison to other authorities, but that most of these children were within a legal framework. Members heard that factors, such as court timetables outside of social workers control, could lead to longer child protection plans as social workers waited for the conclusion of care proceedings. It was acknowledged that there were some practise issues and Members heard that work was ongoing to work more effectively, and with greater oversight, with children on child protection plans. The Head of Social Work with Families explained that, to improve in this area, the Council was seeking better joined up working internally, and with partners, to identify drift. Midway reviews on cases were also taking place at the nine month stage with the social worker, team manager, Child Protection Chair and service manager, to identify where cases needed to be escalated to a legal framework. It was clarified that meetings would be happening regularly before the nine month stage, but this was an important milestone as it indicated the third review of the plan and questions around why the Council were still involved with the child needed to be clarified. At the 12 month stage further reviews were happening, which would also include heads of service. The Sub-Committee were informed that the Council was committed to improving this indicator within six months.

On M20, the Director of Education explained that these numbers often increased during the transition to post-16 education as schools contacted the Council and follow up work began. It was acknowledged that the Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) team was small and that work took some time as the figures were worked through.

Members asked if visits for children on child protection plans happening on time, and heard that primarily that they were; there were some exceptions due to a number of factors, for example, families who were hard to reach, or visits taking place on time but not being recorded in a timely manner. The Head of Social Work with Families explained that the PowerBI live dashboard captured this data, and that Team Managers were reviewing this daily to ensure that these visits were taking place. The importance supporting social workers and of quality social work interventions were highlighted as the most important factors for attaining the best outcomes for children and families.

The Sub-Committee asked that supervision was happening regularly and was of good quality. The Head of Social Work with Families responded that supervision was key and worked through a systemic model. Members heard that coaching and mentoring training was being offered to team managers around challenging cases, in addition to group supervision based on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33/24

The Sub-Committee is asked to:

1.     Note the draft work programme for 2024-25, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

2.     Consider whether there are any changes to the work programme that should be considered.

The Sub-Committee noted the report and restated that it would like to add the following to the Work Programme:

-        A future paper on Family Hubs following a visit to the Woodlands Children Centre.

-        A further update on the Children, Young People and Education Directorate Transformation following the conclusion of the ‘Amplified Analysis’ stage.