This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Verbal updates

    To receive a verbal update from the Cabinet Members for Specialist Children’s Services and Adult Social Care and Public Health, the Corporate Director of Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and the Interim Director of Public Health.

     

    Minutes:

    1.            Mr P J Oakford gave a verbal update on the following issues:-

     

    Child Sexual Exploitation awareness session for Members of this Committee and the Corporate Parenting Panel on 18 December

    Visits with principal practitioner to Folkestone had been very enlightening. He would shortly start a series of visits to all children’s centres in the county, in alternate weeks with visits with social workers.

    Kent Safeguarding Children Board Annual Conference on 13 November – ‘Voice of the Child’

    E.safety– he had recently seen Becky Avery’s excellent presentation on e.safety and the effects of cyber-bullying and recommended it to the committee. He undertook to arrange for this committee and the Corporate Parenting Panel to see Becky’s presentation.

     

    2.            He responded to comments and questions, as follows:-

     

    a)  the presentation on Child Sexual Exploitation for all Members, and the opportunity to discuss the issue at future meetings of this committee, was welcomed.  Schools had a major role to play. Reporting of alerts was vital, and there was much work to be done in this area. Mr Oakford explained that he had met with the Director for Education and Young People’s Services to discuss how schools could best train their teaching staff to handle the issue. The House of Commons report of a recent investigation into Child Sexual Exploitation gave a good summary of the issue, and Members of the committee would be sent a link to the report; and

     

    b)   the value of making a presentation to Members on cyber-bullying was questioned, if Members were not able to hear at first hand the views of young people on the issue. It would be more helpful for Members to be briefed in a school setting or at a Youth Advisory Group, where young people could contribute their views.

     

    3.            Mr A Ireland then gave a verbal update on the following issues:-

     

    0 – 25 Programme Transformation Update – the design phase of work with Newton Europe had been very successful and the implementation stage would end shortly, with a presentation being made to the Portfolio Board and a key Cabinet Member decision being taken in the new year.

    Child Sexual Exploitation – Ofsted themed inspection - the report of the recent inspection had been written in general terms, without highlighting any of the eight local authorities, including Kent, which had been inspected. The report included a number of recommendations, both for local authorities and for its own inspectors, on how to manage the issue. Members of the committee would be sent a link to the report.

    Virtual School Kent Awards for 16+ and Care Leavers – the first such awards ceremony had recently taken place and, it was hoped, would come to have the same profile as the awards ceremony for younger children in care.

     

    4.            He responded to comments and questions, as follows:-

     

    a)    asked about possible wider publication of the Ofsted themed report, Mr Ireland said that he had discussed with Ofsted the possibility of publishing the report once the current criminal proceedings had finished.  Media coverage of the trials would draw some attention to some of the issues.  The Kent Safeguarding Children Board had undertaken an independent review of Operation Lakeland, and this would also be published once criminal proceedings had finished;

     

    a)    asked about coverage in the report of the issue of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) who had gone missing, Mr Ireland said there was no specific mention of any UASC, only mention of missing children in general; and

     

    b)    asked about Kent’s record in addressing cases of Child Sexual Exploitation, in comparison to other local authorities, Mr Ireland said that staff were well attuned and alert to the issue via training, which was mandatory for social work staff.  He explained that victims of exploitation often did not see themselves as being exploited, believing themselves to be in a relationship, and could often only recognise exploitation in hindsight.  

     

    5.             Mr G K Gibbens gave a verbal update on the following issues:-

     

    School Public Health Service – contract extensions

    Contract awards for Community Sexual Health Service, round 1 (November 2014)

    1 October - attended Kent Malnutrition Conference at Ashford International Hotel

    10 October - attended Public Health Mental Wellbeing Celebration Day at Sessions House – the aim of World Mental Health day on 10 October was to highlight mental health issues across all age groups and sections of society, as research had shown that one in four people would experience some sort of mental ill health during their lifetime. Early diagnosis was key, and, for young people, GP support and good transition from children’s to adult service was key.

    15 October - hosted Professor Chris Bentley’s Health Inequalities briefing for Members at Sessions House – this had highlighted the seven stages of life and the importance of a child’s early years.  Health inequality was a huge issue to be tackled.

    19 November - spoke at the Wellbeing Symposium at Detling Showground

    26 November - attended Environment, Health & Sustainability Conference at Ashford International Hotel

     

    6.             Mr A Scott-Clark then gave a verbal update on the following issues:-

     

    Update on health visiting – the Healthy Child programme would commence in October 2015 and would include both the health visitor and family nurse partnership services.  Much work had gone into identifying current patterns of servicedelivery, and the condition of the service that the County Council would inherit in October 2015.  The funding allocation for the service would also become clear at that time.

    Family nurse partnership - this service worked with new mothers under the age of 19 and gave support to a child for the first 2½ years of life.  It was designed to provide support around a family, including a child’s father, with support being gradually reduced over time to allow a family to function on its own.

    Work with preventative services – this service also worked with young parents and children in the first 2½ years of life.

    Maternity – the County Council was currently working with clinical commissioning groupss to identify the best way for the two to collaborate to run key public health programmes,  eg the BabyClear programme, which sought to reduce babies’ exposure to cigarette smoke before birth and in their early years.

     

    7.            He responded to comments and questions, as follows:-

     

    a)    asked about the family nurse partnership service, he explained that:-

    ·         the service would be commissioned by public health and would be part of its provider arm, delivered via the Kent Community Health Trust,

    ·         it was a licensed, national programme and was very prescribed, eg in terms of monitoring, and was subject to national evaluation,

    ·         the service would consist mainly of former health visitors with a public health background,

    ·         where the service would be located was not yet known, but it was expected that family nurses would spend most of their time on home visits, rather than being based at an office or centre,

    ·         families would be told about by, and be able to access the service via, their midwife, but all professionals working in the preventative and early help services would be aware of it, and

    ·         the service would cover the whole of the county so all families were able to access a universal, common service.  However, the time it would take to roll out the service over the whole county was, as yet, unclear;

     

    b)    it was important to make the best of available opportunities to establish links between families and the health visitor service, to minimise as far as possible the scope for a child to come into care.  Mr Scott-Clark agreed that it was vital to check that the planned services to young families were actually being delivered and that there was good local integration of service;

     

    c)    good coverage of service was important, so that all areas of the county, including remote and deprived areas, could access them. It was important that service delivery be properly monitored.  An update on service delivery would be made to this committee in six months’ time;

     

    d)    the promptness of parents receiving information about the health visitor and family nurse partnership services, at the start of a pregnancy, was important, and Mr Scott-Clark explained that information on the service would be given to any expectant mother who was eligible for the service at her first appointment with a midwife, the aim being to facilitate a meeting between a family nurse and mother as soon as possible;

     

    e)    the service itself was not mandatory, although some elements of it were services which the County Council was required to deliver; and

     

    f)     the aim of the health visitor and family nurse services, under the Healthy Child Programme, was that every young mother and child should receive support and advice until the child reached five and the school nurse service took over, ensuring good assessment supported by good planning.

     

    8.    The verbal updates were noted, with thanks.

     

     

     

     

     

    Supporting documents: