Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interest was declared:

Agenda Item 9 – Data Quality Assurance

Councillor Sue Anderson declared, during the course of the meeting, a pecuniary interest in that she was employed by the NHS.  She would leave the room whilst this aspect of the report was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Referring to Minute 363, the report of the Chair of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee, a Member stated that there had been an unacceptable delay in the provision of SAP reports that had been requested at a meeting of the Sub-Committee.  The Chair of the Sub-Committee expressed her disappointment that the information requested had not been provided and urged that action be taken to address this and stated that she hoped that this issue need not be raised again.  Another Member reminded the Committee of the Access to Information protocol and that there were timescales that had to be adhered to.  If the information was not going to be made available his expectation would be that both the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer be requested to attend the Committee in order to provide an explanation.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were received.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions had been received.

(if any).

RESOLVED: To note that no references had been received.

Oral report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise

The Chair welcomed the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise and Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety to the meeting.

The Corporate Director stated that in terms of priorities her mantra was operational excellence and agenda for growth.  In terms of operational excellence, this was about putting the customer at the heart of everything her service delivered.  It was also about a service that impacted positively on the Council’s reputation and was valued by all as well as having a workforce that felt valued and well led.  In terms of agenda for growth, this was about exploiting the opportunities that still existed in Harrow and to recognise the role Harrow played in West London.

The Corporate Director advised that there were a number of challenges ahead.  There was no commonly held view as to what ‘good’ looked like in her service and Members often held diametrically opposed views and this had to be balanced.  Whilst there were significant challenges in terms of the budget, the budget forecast for the current year was for an underspend.  She reported that there was a need to reduce some service specifications and to engage with the community to see if residents were willing to do certain activities themselves.  Other challenges included inconsistent levels of staff morale and poor management in some areas of the service.

In terms of opportunities, the Corporate Director reported that whilst there was an opportunity to create a unified workforce and that she was in discussion with her management team on plans, these could not be delivered at a time of intense change.  Different ways of engaging with staff had to be found as there had been too great a focus on management in the past.  There were opportunities to learn from the best and to put Harrow at the forefront of place shaping.

Members then asked a series of questions which included the following:

·                     A Member asked what the consensus view of what a good service looked like, what the priorities were and how they were being measured.  The Corporate Director responded that this would come out of the service planning process and once the plans were developed they would be shared more widely.

The Member expressed concern at the response received and stated that he had been advised that the commissioning process panel had focused on outcomes and now the budget had been set.  He was therefore unclear as to how officers had got this far through the process without knowing the outcomes sought.  He sought clarification on the outcomes set in the commissioning process panel and what outcomes were going to be delivered to residents.  The Corporate Director advised that the Corporate Plan set out the priorities that would be delivered through the service plans.

·                     In response to a Member’s question as to the Corporate Director’s ideas for improving staff morale, the Corporate Director advised that it was inevitable that staff would have concerns about their future in an organisation that was down sizing,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 372.

Report of the Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools which outlined the government’s Troubled Families Initiative. Families First was Harrow’s approach to the initiative and must identify and work with 395 families during the project.

The Chair welcomed Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools and the Families First Project Co-ordinator to the meeting and drew Members’ attention to the case studies which had been circulated on Part II of the agenda.  The Divisional Director outlined the content of the report and advised that early feedback on the project was positive.

Members then made comments and asked questions as follows:

·                     In response to a question in relation to measurement of success and whether any guidance had been given, the Divisional Director advised that the Council was required to show that children that had been persistently absent from school now attended, a workless adult was now on a pathway to employment and that a family with anti social behaviour had stopped behaving in that way.

·                     The Divisional Director confirmed that targets were being set on a family by family basis which should then aggregate by July 2013.  Payment by Results were available through the 3 years of the project.

·                     A Member sought clarification as to the number of key workers and their capacity to deal with the workload.  The Divisional Director advised that there were 4 teams located within the Early Intervention Service with approximately 10-12 per team.  Good practice indicated that each key worker would have a caseload of between 12-17 cases.  The officer advised that the number of cases and their intensity would vary.

·                     A Member asked whether the project was self financing or was at cost to the Council.  It was expected that an increase in payment by results would be achieved.  Attachment fees would be received throughout the project, but the funding was front loaded.  A maximum of £4,000 was available per family consisting of up front attachment fees and payment by results.  The proportion of up front fee decreases each year as the element of Payment by Results increases.

·                     A Member stated that it appeared that the role of keyworker was crucial and she questioned whether, in the long term, there would be issues of continuity and how this would be managed.  The Divisional Director advised that there would inevitably changes in staff through the programme but that it was the role of the manager to manage any exits and handover.  This would, however, be a challenge for families.

o                   The Divisional Director advised that keyworkers came from a range of backgrounds ie social work, youth work, education welfare, and this meant that there was a multi disciplinary team.  Due to the nature of the criteria supplied by government for identifying families, the families in the programme were, however, not necessarily the most difficult to reach.  To date only 2 of the 125 families approach had indicated that they did not wish to participate.

·                     In response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 373.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive and Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning which was a follow up to a report considered by Members in November 2012.  The Chair welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Customer Services and Corporate Services, the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning and another officer to the meeting.

The Divisional Director, in introducing the report, stated that overall it could be concluded that Harrow’s data quality standard was relatively sound although there were some inconsistencies.  An officer added that it was also important to recognise that there were was broad work on information management governance going on and that the internal audit department had provided input into the report before Members.

A Member expressed concern at the lack of data in the report and, referring to paragraph 2.14 of the report, questioned how Members could identify a subtle issue or where there was not such a high level of checking.  Members relied on the performance data they received and needed to have confidence in it.  An officer reported that the no further action report in relation to the increase in referrals to social care had been considered by the Corporate Director of Children and Families and that as a result of that issue there was now a different approach.  There was a dedicated team carrying out case file audit that could identify the more subtle data issues and a data quality policy was being developed.  In addition, further training of staff had been carried out and a clear explanation of the requirements in terms of data given.  Members were also informed that computer software would prevent a member of staff accessing the system if they had not completed the online training.

In response to a Member’s comment that reference to data quality requirements should be included in managers’ roles and responsibilities and that failure to comply should result in sanctions, the officer responded that there were many examples where managers took a lot of care.  There would, however, always be exceptions to this.

In terms of Members having to rely on information that the NHS provided, the officer confirmed that there was an expectation that the Council complete their information governance toolkit.  The public health team used NHS data from hospitals and GPs and it was the analysis of that information which was key.   Another Member stated that he was yet to be convinced that public health was providing accurate data.  If residents and users were not recognised the Council would be under funded due to poor data.

A Member questioned whether 100% of the Housing stock survey data was available.  The officer advised that considerable work was going on in the housing area and the data could be provided to the Member.  The Divisional Director added that Housing was one of the Council’s success stories in that improved data had transformed how the service was run.

In terms of changing the culture in relation to data quality and a Member’s comment that, having heard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 374.

Report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning accompanied the scope of the Accessible Transport review.

Following a Member’s comment in relation to costing any recommendations arising from the review, the officer reminded the Committee that it was not their role to do that and that it was a matter for officers in the service area to advise Cabinet with regards to the cost of recommendations.

Members made a number of comments on the scope including that the reporting arrangement required amendment, the review group should request a representative of Transport for London (TfL) to accompany Members on any relevant visits, consideration be given to the inclusion of NHS transport and that it might be helpful to look at Council provided services as part of the round table discussion.

RESOLVED:  That the scope of the Accessible Transport review be approved.

To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence, or of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972:

RESOLVED:  That in accordance with Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item for the reason set out below:

Annex 3 to the report of the Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools

RESOLVED:  That the appendix be noted.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4B of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  At 9.57 pm to continue until 10.10 pm.