Agenda item

Carolann James, Interim Director of Operational Integrated Children's Services, Hema Birdi, Assistant Director - Adolescents and Open Access East/South, Danielle Day, Family Hubs Project Manager, Wendy Jefferys, Public Health Specialist, and Anjan Ghosh Director of Public Health were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mrs Chandler introduced the item advising that the report detailed a proposed delivery model to provide a joined up service from birth up to the age of 19, or age of 25 for those with SEND.

2.    Further to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

·       There was no information about the number of hubs or their location.  The consultation responses emphasised the importance of having a somewhere for face to face interaction.

·      Face to face interaction did not necessarily require a designated building, for example home visits offered face to face interaction.

·       Grant funding of £11,000,000 would be used to transform services in to family hubs.  This would include training and development of the workforce.  

·       The Family Hubs model would provide a more consistent offer of services across Kent, and there was the opportunity to provide additional specific services in response to specific local need.

·       The allocation of £500,000 for capital expenditure suggested that there would not be the need too significantly adapt buildings.

·       The core services that had been identified were good however, it could be difficult to deliver them all from a single hub as there were so many. 

·       The dedicated safe space for young people would probably be sited where the delivery of young people’s services took place.

·       The Family Hubs model would enable joined up working with partners by bringing services together. 

·       The test sites had generated qualitative information and the feedback had detailed what was important to young people.  Online services could be good for some situations but were not always suitable.

·       The location of the hubs was very important, consideration should be given to how people who were reliant upon public transport would access them. 

·       In the past, open access to youth services proved a valuable refuge for young people in times of urgent need.  Discussions were taking place with youth groups and young people about the proposals.

·       The consultation coincided with the school holidays which may have reduced the level of engagement.  

·       There was concern that the proposals were heavily reliant upon the voluntary sector and there appeared to be a gap in provision of services for primary school aged children.

·       The division of expenditure was evolving and had not been broken down into age groups at this stage.

·       There needed to be a clear and reassuring message that Family Hubs would not leave people without services.

3.    RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision to;

a.    Approve the implementation of the Family Hub model in Kent, as per the arrangements set out in the report.

b.    Approve the development and delivery of the workstreams detailed within the Start for Life and Family Hub programme.

c.     Confirm the viability of the Kent Family Hub model within any estate map outlined within the Kent Communities Programme.

d.    Delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education (CYPE), in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Integrated Children’s Services and Adult Social Care & Public Health, to undertake the detailed service design and delivery within the relevant estate map, as determined via Kent Communities Programme decision-making.

e.    Delegate authority to the Corporate Director for CYPE to take other necessary actions, including but not limited to entering into relevant contracts or other legal agreements, as required to implement the decision.

4.    In accordance with paragraph 16.31 of the Constitution, Dr Sullivan, Mr Brady, Mrs Dean, Mr Stepto and Ms Hawkins wished for it to be recorded in the minutes that they voted against the endorsement of the proposed decision.