Agenda item

(Report by Mrs Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education and Mrs Wainwright, Director of Commissioning (Specialist Services))

(Mrs J Wainwright and Mrs J Ackroyd Kent Children’s Trust Partnership Manager were present for this item)

(1)                           The Committee considered a reportthat set out the initial findings from the Kent Children’s Trust (KCT) Commissioning and Delivery Review. Those findings would inform options for change to strengthen Kent’s integrated commissioning and delivery arrangements to improve outcomes for children and young people in line with the Children and Young People’s Plan.

(2)               Mrs Wainwright introduced the report introducing Mrs Ackroyd to the Committee who she advised had carried out a lot of the ground work necessary to secure the report.  Mrs Wainwright highlighted Appendix 2 of the report, which gave the sense of the whole report.  She advised that Kent was currently reviewing the Kent Children’s Trust arrangements, which other Local Authorities were also undertaking.  Through the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning (ASCL) Bill the Government was seeking to strengthen children’s trust arrangements to deliver the ambitious programme.  The Bill aimed to:

·  extend the ‘duty to cooperate’ to Jobcentre plus and to all front line providers of education (including academies); and

·  place Children’s Trust Boards on a statutory basis with a joint responsibility to own and resource the Children and Young Peoples Plan.

(3)               Mrs Ackroyd added that the Bill was making its way through Parliament and a draft of supporting guidance was expected on 13 November 2009.  Mrs Wainwright then spoke on Appendix 1, which highlighted those elements that were going well and those areas that needed improvement.   She explained that there was a close link with this review, the overall review of the Children, Families and Education Directorate structure and the review of the Local Children’s Services Partnerships.

(4)               Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments which included the following:-

(5)               In response to a question by Mr Vye, Mrs Wainwright gave examples of issues the joint commissioning could be used for, which included; Looked After Children (LAC) attainment, there was a need for full commitment of the Kent Children’s Trust Partners whether it was through voluntary organisation or local organisations that provided positive activities for young people or the housing arrangements for young people leaving care. 

(6)               Mrs Wainwright said in response to a question by Mr Vye, that it was preferred to look at resources as human resources, skilled professionals, so that joint commissioning was through exchanges of commitment through partners rather than an exchange of money.  If there was funding available this would be used for joint commissioning where the needs analysis indicates.

(7)               In response to Mr Wells’ concerns, Mrs Wainwright explained that it would be wrong to review the Children’s Trust arrangements and not look at those of the Local Children’s Services Partnerships (LCSPs). It had been found that there was an opportunity to look at different arrangements for the Partners including their attendance at meetings.  District Councils as well as other Partners had questioned the amount of meetings they needed to attend with 23 LCSPs.  They were also questioning whether 23 LCSPs was the right number and the time they were taken away from their host organisations.  There was an opinion with our Partners that there should be fewer rather than more LCSPs that we had at present.  There were thoughts around providing more flexible configuration to those aspects of the Partnerships that were associated with direct service delivery eg a Partnership Board covering a wider geographical area with delivery teams that covered specifically local and targeted areas so that there would be more flexibility.

(8)               In response to a questions by Dr Wadman regarding where the commissioning authority rest and where the effective monitoring rest, Mrs Ackroyd advised that within the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning (ASCL) Bill this had been rehearsed and there had been significant feedback from Local Authorities about needing clearer guidance about when Partnerships come together what the specific roles and responsibilities were. The direction and guidance that had been received from the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCSF) during presentations indicated that the responsibility for preparing and monitoring a partnership plan would be with the Children’s Trust Board as a new statutory board under the new legislation but the delivery against that plan would be retained under the individual services ie those services delivered through KCC eg children’s social care would still be within the direct delivery remit of KCC, where it came together was in the agreement of the Local Children’s Services Partnership Plan. The aim was to ensure that the services were done in a joined up way for the child and the family.  The Children’s Trust Executive  one of the drivers behind the review was ensuring that Kent was in step with the guidance but maximising partnership arrangements to the best advantage of children and families and professional working in the services in Kent.  Kent was not being lead by the guidance but ensuring that it was in step with guidance using it to ensure the best impact in Kent.  With the services that KCC was responsible for there was no change to what the Overview and Scrutiny role that Members had.  The Children’s Trust would be where all of the interested partnerships come together. Mrs Wainwright added that there was an option, should any of the partner agencies significantly fail to deliver what they were responsible for within the Children’s and Young Peoples Plan, for Kent to invoke the duty to cooperate as the lead partner.

(9)               Mr Vye advised the Committee that he was a Member of the Kent Children’s Trust and the Partners on the Trust were not use to getting involved in scrutiny.  There were sub groups and the Executive would exercise their scrutiny.  He felt that Kent had a duty to scrutinise what was done under Kent’s name.  He questioned whether Kent had the right to scrutinise what other partners did in line with the arrangements to scrutinise Kent Police and Kent Health Authorities. In response Mrs Ackroyd advised that the guidance may give a view on this. She added that the lead political accountability rested with the Cabinet Member and the lead professional accountability rested with the Managing Director for Children, Families and Education.  She added that the inspection arrangements were beginning to catch up with the Partnership agenda and through the new Comprehensive Area Assessment there would be a judgement given about how Partners were fulfilling their duty to cooperate to improve outcomes.

(10)          RESOLVED that:-

(a)       the initial findings from the review set out in Appendix 1 of the report be noted;

(b)       the Commitment to a programme of development and change   across all Partner Agencies of the Kent Children’s Trust be noted; and

(c)        a full report on the review and final recommendations for commissioning arrangements be submitted to the next meeting of this Committee.