Agenda item

The following representatives from LCSP will be attending for this item:-

Ruth Herron, LCSP Manager

Jane Robinson, Chair of the LCSP Board

Nicky Cole, Voluntary Organisation

(1)               Members considered a report that provided background information on the progress made and embedding of the processes for the Canterbury city and Country LCSP.

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

(3)               In response to concerns raised by Mr Jones regarding the use of the misspelling of the word “topix”, not using capital letters and the need for quality teaching, Mrs Robinson reassured Mr Jones this was just how young people liked to personalise and badge services and agreed that the quality of teaching was paramount in the classroom and confirmed the professionalism of the teachers in the Canterbury area.

(4)               In response to Mr Vye’s suggestion that there should be consistent outcomes across the county accompanied by the need to measure and monitor those outcomes for young people, although the emphasis and way support was delivered may vary, Mrs Herron advised that the focus of the headings, for example, drug/alcohol may be different was due to the fact that this was a larger issue in the Canterbury area probably due to the large student population and may not be a focus in another Partnership area.  Mrs Morris added that her department provided data to all of the Partnerships, which helped each Partnership focus and prioritise a responsive plan in line with the framework.

(5)               In response to a question by Mr Vye, Mrs Herron reassured him that there were opportunities for the Partnership Chairmen to meet, along with the LCSP Managers.  They met six times per year and in addition also attended the Partnership Managers Group which enabled them to share information and to maintain consistency across the Partnerships.

(6)               In response to a question by the Reverend Genders on how areas linked across each other, Mrs Herron explained that there were two boards in Canterbury which had continued crossover of work.  They shared Minutes of their meetings and were both aware of each others projects as well as carrying out joint projects.  There were also meetings between the headteachers.  Mr Adams explained that there had been moves made to pool resources, especially for smaller partnerships.

(7)               In response to a question by Mr Northey on consulting young people and what structure there was to keep young peoples views and what they wanted, Mrs Morris advised that she felt it was about having an honest discussion with young people including what constraints had to be made.  Work was being undertaken to improve how this communication was carried out.  Mrs Robinson explained that there were school councils in the Canterbury schools, all young people on the council had a viewpoint but they knew the parameters and had a good perception.  She gave the example of a joint cluster of councils who looked at the issue of bullying in schools which had worked out very well.  Mrs Herron concluded that children who were not at school could be contacted through “Hot Topix”.

(8)               Mr Northey felt that young people elected to the Youth County Council were not representative. 

(9)               In response to a question by Mr Northey, Mrs Herron advised that all schools had “student voice” which had become essential, and a very powerful way to ballot schools.  Online surveys were used in all schools in Canterbury under “not in education, employment or training” (NEET) those young people were contacted individually.  Children’s feedback was hugely important in monitoring the resources provided and what was needed. 

(10)          In response to a question regarding Ashford 1 and Rural by Mr Jones, Mrs Froude advised that they did share information with Local Members on secondary issues for 14-19 year olds development in the town which helped organise provision.

(11)          Mr Jones expressed his frustration with the choice of language and acronyms in the reports presented at this meeting, Mr Adams suggested that some thought needed to be given to the quality assurance of reports prior to the POC. 

(12)          In response to the explanation that Canterbury faced many transitional families such as army personnel as well as migrants who did not speak English, Mr Adams advised that there were different pressures in each partnership area.  Where there were army personnel it was a fact that there was regular movement of children in and out of the area, therefore the area needed to respond flexibly.  Some of the schools in those areas had provided teaching assistants from the migrant communities; i.e. the Nepalese and Polish communities.  This created a staff resource in certain schools that had expertise in those communities that other Partnerships could call upon.  Mr Ramsey added that his school had 13 Nepalese students.  The appointment of a Nepalese classroom assistant had worked very well.  This had also helped with the migrant parents of the pre-school children engaged in the school community.    

(13)          In response to a question by Mrs Allen, Mrs Froude advised that the Partnership did refer to the Local Area Agreement regarding health issues and included data in relation to National Performance indicators.  This was helpful when bidding for health funding on issues such as ‘Tackling Obesity’. 

(14)          In response to a suggestion by Mr Vye, Mrs Froude advised that the Partnerships were in discussions regarding pooling resources through aligning.  She gave the example of the increase in social services referrals causing difficulties in staffing and where pooling resources would have been beneficial but was unable to happen.  Mr Adams explained that the issue was about accountability and value for money, ensuring the function met with the objectives.  This would need to be discussed at the Kent Children’s Trust.  Mr Ridings concluded that this was a national issue and discussions were already taking place to remedy the situation.  Officers were requested to produce a report on the issues relating to aligning funding to provide services where there are gaps that could lead to a pilot scheme.

(15)          Mr Vye said that the Sub Committee needed to be aware of the Partnerships pinch points so that Members could offer support by making representation. 

(16)          Mrs Morris advised that the Children’s Trust Board would be a statutory board responsible for the Children and Young Person’s Plan (CYPP) and her office would be supplying the costings and monitoring what the Board was doing towards the CYPP.  The measures were due from central government.

(17)          Mr Adams explained that the Partnership were eager to find solutions to the vacancies for social workers.  He suggested that alternative ways to manage the number of vacancies may need to be found but this was a debate to be had.  Mrs Ackroyd added that this was the power of the LCSPs, being able to have deeper debates to find new solutions for old problems.

(18)          RESOLVED that the Members comments and the report be noted.