To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received by Cllr McWilliams and Tanya White.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Mills declared a personal interest in the item on 4 Marlow Road as she was a council representative on the management committee, as this was not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest she stayed and considered the item.

To consider the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2017.

The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2017 were approved as a true and correct record subject to on page 11 Cllr Louden be changed to Mr Louden.

Cllr Wilson asked if asked if the national rankings chart, as mentioned on page 10, had been sent to all Members.  The Panel were informed that it had not yet been sent but it would be actioned.

Cllr Airey informed that the Forest Bridge schools report discussed at the Panel’s last meeting had been Called In by the Culture and Communities O&S Panel.  The Call In resulted in no further action required and thus the recommendations were implemented. 

Cllr Airey also informed that Lowbrook School had not accepted the latest offer and thus the expansion would not go ahead.

To comment on the Cabinet report.

The Panel considered the latest Cabinet financial update report.

The Panel were informed that the council was in a positive financial position.  The Adult, Children’s and Health directorate projected an underspend of £25,000 on a budget of over £57m. The Corporate and Community Services directorate projected an underspend of £64,000. The Operations and Customer Services projected an underspend of £337,000. As a consequence, this left the overall reserves at several hundred thousand pounds above the target budgeted to achieve by 31 March 2017.

With regards to Children’s Services the Panel were informed that the following three areas were reporting and overspend, commissioning (+7.4%), health, early help and safeguarding (5.4%) and dedicated schools grant spend (+1.1%).  This was offset by underspends in schools and education services (-2.2%) and dedicated schools grant income (-1.1%).

The Panel were informed that main non DSG budget issues were:

·         Home to school transport +£318k

·         Agency staff in MASH +474k

·         Residential Placements +261k

·         Legal support from Joint Team +£276k

·         CYPD childcare placements - £374k

·         Leaving Care costs - £185k

With regards to DSG budget issues the Panel were informed that the issues were:

·         Passenger assistance – high needs +£300k

·         PVI entitlement - January headcount - £207k

·         independent special school placements  +£700k

Cllr Jones asked that if we were looking at trends for the pressures would they be increasing or decreasing.  The Panel were informed that when looking at high needs there had been an increased pressure over the past year and initial measures to address this had been agreed by the Schools Forum who would also be looking at further measures.  There had also been a pressure relating to passenger assistance and this was being reviewed.  There had been a pressure relating to agency staff within the MASH and this was successfully being addressed.

Cllr Jones mentioned that she was please t hear that the agency staff pressure was being addressed and asked if it was possible to have a trend analysis for this in next months report.

The Panel were informed that there was a national issue regarding some agency staff who set themselves up as companies and paid themselves low wages to avoid taxation whilst charging a higher amount that went to the company.  The government had recognised this and Councils could take tax a source and thus it became better for agency staff to become permanent staff.

Cllr  E Wilson asked that with regards to CD95 Safe Routes – Holyport College, where did the money came from.  The Pane were informed that it was from S106 contributions but this would be checked.

With regards to Lowbrook School Cllr E Wilson  asked how much had been spent on the school to date to provide the extra 30 places and what was the balance.  The Panel was informed that when the expansion agreement was in place last year £1.3 million had been set aside.  About £75k had been spent for the internal expansion works and we were awaiting for the remaining costs of the external extension  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To comment on the Cabinet report.

The Panel considered the Cabinet report on the progress of the Intensive Family Support Programme (IFSP).

The Panel were informed that  the Troubled Families programme was launched in April 2012. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) had been delivering early help support services for Troubled Families through the Intensive Family Support programme (IFSP) since April 2012.  RBWM made the decision to deliver this programme by setting up a specialist team that could work intensively with families. This team was known as the Intensive Family Support Service.

The Panel were informed that troubled families were families where children where persistently absence or excluded from school, if a young person was involved in crime or anti-social behaviour and where parents were not working, affected by domestic abuse, drug and alcohol issues and parents or children with some health problems.  

The programme allowed officers to work with families and prevent statutory intervention.  When successful families were classed as ‘turned around’ when they were enabled to make changes to their lives.

RBWM had worked with 484 families overall since April 2012 but directly worked with 301 families with 214 families that have considered to have “turned” their lives around.

A payment by results approach had been designed to demonstrate tangible success through the outcomes for each family. The Royal Borough has put in place robust result verification and validation systems to secure assurance that payment by results claims were genuine and evidence-based.  The Government will undertake regular spot checks of a sample of claims for payment and should the Royal Borough be spot checked officers were confident that everything required could be evidenced to satisfy scrutiny.

Members were informed that the programme was delivered in two stages, phase one ran from 2012- 2015 and phase two from 2015- 2020.

During phase one of the project, 209 families had been worked with and 160 of those received direct support with 140 of these families being assessed as achieving sustainable change and therefore are considered to have been ‘turned around’.  RBWM had made Payment By Results for the 140 families turned around.

The target for phase 2 was to work with and turn around 460 families which would require working with 660 families. To date RBWM had currently worked with 275.  In 2016 -17 57 families had been ‘turned around’.

Phase two used the knowledge gained form phase one to achieve continued significant and sustained progress for families within the framework of early intervention to reduce the demand on statutory services.

The Panel were informed that families were put on  the programme via referrals from professionals or the public through the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) or via intelligence sources from partners, for example, families that may be at risk of financial exclusion, homelessness or families who were known to police through their community workers.

Work with families could last for up to a year with the average of nine months to ensure changes are sustained. The borough had 5 keyworkers with capacity to work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To comment on the Cabinet report.

The Panel considered the Cabinet report regarding alternative options for managing 4 Marlow Road as the new contractor (Achieving for Children) did not wish to manage the community building.

The Panel were informed  that 4 Marlow Road was a purpose built youth and community centre. The site had previously been managed by leisure services, then youth services, and it was now proposed to move it to Parkwood Leisure from 1 August 2017 as an addition to the existing contract with the borough. The day to day running of the facility would move to Parkwood, however the ownership of the building would remain with the borough and highways would maintain the car park. There would be no breach in service for existing users and no change to leases other than an extension.  The report had also been considered by the Culture and Communities O&S Panel.

The Chairman asked if there was a break clause in the contract and was informed that there was as it was an extension of an existing contract that contained a clause.

Cllr E Wilson asked why it was just this buildings management that was being transferred and not the other youth centres.  The Panel were informed that this was because 4 Marlow Road was a multi agency use building whilst youth centres were single use. 

Cllr Wilson also asked if this was a change in policy due to AFC and was informed that it was not a shift in policy just about the management of the building.

Cllr Jones asked if there were guarantees that the services that were currently in the building would continue and was informed that there was and that the lease was being extended.

Cllr Wilson asked if Parkwood were being asked to manage the building as AFC could not.  The Panel were informed that AFC were responsible for service delivery and that the proposals were to have an existing contractor manage the building.  Irrespective of AFC the Council would have been looking at transferred the management of the building out of Youth Services; AFC just brought this forward.

Resolved unanimously: that The Children’s Services O&S Panel considered the Cabinet report and fully endorsed the recommendations.  

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public

be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place

on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as

defined in Paragraphs 1- 7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local

Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2017.

To note the Part II appendix.