Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: To note the attendance of the following duly constituted Reserve Members:

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

All Agenda items

Councillor Kairul Kareema Marikar declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was Portfolio Holder Assistant for Environment, Crime and Community Safety and that she worked in the field of Health & Social Care.  She would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Agenda Items 7 - Implementation of the New Youth Offending Case Management System

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he had been the Portfolio Holder responsible for terminating the Capita IT contract.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 8 June 2016 and the two special meetings held on 12 July 2016 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2016 and the two Special meetings held on 12 July 2016, be taken as read and signed as correct records..

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Thursday 15^th September 2016.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that none were received.

(a)       Response to Scrutiny Challenge Panel Report ‘Social and Community Infrastructure.

Reference from Cabinet on 14 July 2016.

(b)       Response to Scrutiny Challenge Panel Report ‘Impacts of Welfare Report in Harrow’.

            Reference from Cabinet on 14 July 2016.

RESOLVED:  That the two References from Cabinet be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director, People Services.

The Committee considered a report which set out the annual updated Youth Justice Plan.

Following a brief overview of the report by officers, Members asked the following questions and made the following comments.  Officers responded accordingly:

·                     What was the relationship between the data relating to first time offenders, the rates of re-offending and the issuing of custodial sentences?

·                     Was the ethnicity and any gang affiliation or gang membership of offenders and re-offenders monitored and was this data available?

·                     Why had the Black/African/Caribbean/Black British group been consistently over represented in youth offending services in recent years?  Why was the white population now over represented in youth offending services?

·                     What figures were available regarding gang activity and knife crime in the borough?  Had there been a noticeable increase in the levels of hate crime in the borough in the wake of Brexit?

·                     The figures showed that there had been a steady decrease in the number of first time entrants to the Youth Justice System between 2010-2011 and 2013-2014, however, this had increased in 2014-15.  The figures also showed an increase in re-offending rates.  What were the reasons for these increases?  Had the types of offences committed worsened on a national level?

·                     What improvement had there been in the performance of the Youth Offending Service (YOT) recently?

·                     What was the reason for the high proportion of Children Looked After (CLAs) in the YOT caseload?

·                     If a young person was cautioned or arrested but not charged with an offence, would they still enter the youth justice system?

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) had set the following three outcome indicators for the Youth Offending Team, namely, to reduce the number of First Time Entrants (FTE) to the Youth Justice System, to reduce Re-offending and to reduce the Use of Custodial sentences.  There was no single reason for the recent increase in rates of offending.  There remained a strong relationship between FTEs and re-offending and the re-offending rates related to a small cohort of ‘hard-core’ re-offenders.  Because the overall number of FTEs was relatively low, the figures for re-offending may at first glance appear high.  It was important to note that the numbers of offenders in question were in the hundreds and not thousands.

Data relating to the ethnicity of offenders was monitored but had not been included in the report under consideration.  Due to Harrow’s unique demography, it was difficult to make comparisons to National and London averages for the ethnicity of young offenders.  Thus, all ethnicity comparisons were made against the local demographic make-up of the 10-17 year old population.

The over-representation of Black/African/Caribbean/Black/Mixed British group in the service was a common trend in most urban areas.  However, there were a number of complex factors for this and this over-representation may equally relate to poverty and deprivation as much as to race/ethnicity.

There had been an increase in knife crime both locally and nationally.  The YOT team were involved in the ‘Violence, vulnerability and exploitation’ initiative which was focussed on prevention.  Each young offender  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Report of the Corporate Director, People Services.

The Committee considered a report which set out further progress made since the Local Assurance Test (LAT) Progress Review undertaken in April 2016, by the Local Government Association (LGA) following the establishment of the People Services Directorate.

Following a brief overview of the report, Members asked the following questions and made the following comments, which were responded to accordingly:

·                     When would the People Services Directorate be reviewed again?  To what extent had the Key Recommendations of the Review been implemented?

·                     What were the circumstances surrounding the operational weakness in the MASH (Multi-agency Safeguarding Hub)?

·                     Why had the same two senior managers who had carried out the initial LAT Review in May 2015 also been re-appointed to carry out the review in April 2016?

Officers could provide an update report to the Committee in 9-12 months’ time, if required.  However, there was no requirement to carry out a follow-up review of the Directorate. 

Progress on the 4 additional Key Recommendations specified in the Review, was as follows:

·                     the Directorate had a more cohesive approach and was able to deliver a more integrated function;

·                     an integrated 0-25 years Children and Young Adults Disability Service had been established,

·                     an integrated commissioning (Adults and Children’s) service had been established and operational for the previous six months;

·                     a single post of Principal Social Worker for both Adults and Children had been created and would shortly be appointed to;

·                     a single Harrow Social Work Conference (Adults and Children’s) was in the advanced stage of planning.

An independent Review of the MASH in January 2016 had highlighted significant areas for improvement.  A robust Action Plan had been drawn up and implemented and a second MASH review, completed in July 2016, had identified significant improved progress.  Both Reviews had been reported to the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board.

Both the Local Test in 2015 and the Review in 2016 had been undertaken by the Local Government Association Children’s Improvement Adviser. The LGA had provided a sector-led adviser to carry out both LAT Reviews.  The process undertaken had been robust and challenging and had been carried out by sector-led experts. 

It was agreed that the Council would undertake a self-assessment using the Towards Excellence in Adult Social Care (TEASC), risk awareness tool which had been launched by the Local Government Association and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services in October 2015. Quality assurance of the self-assessment was then undertaken by two independent adult social care and health consultants. In addition to this, an OFSTED inspection, which would review the LAT, was expected to be carried out shortly.

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Young People commended officers for the work undertaken in establishing the People Directorate and its achievements to date.

The Chair stated that the Committee were not best placed to assess the new arrangements in the People Services Directorate.  In his view,  the Directorate would benefit from further professional scrutiny in the form of a follow-up LAT Review in two years’ time, to ensure that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

Report of the Corporate Director, People Services.

The Committee considered a report which set out the issues that arose following the implementation of the new Youth Offending Case management system.  It considered the impact of the system implementation on the Youth Offending Team (YOT) practice and performance and recorded lessons learned for those involved in the project.

Members asked the following questions and officers responded accordingly:

·                     It was clear from the officer report that the new software had been implemented too quickly and that the overall process of replacing the Case Management System should have been initiated much sooner.  What assurance could be given that in the future, any IT upgrades and replacements would be managed in a timely and effective manner with sufficient contingency built in? 

·                     A number of other IT systems in use in the Council were reaching or had reached ‘end of life’ and were giving rise to performance issues.   How could the overall process of replacing these be improved on a council wide level?

·                     The Youth Offending Information System (YOIS) had first been identified for replacement in 2012 – had this initial upgrade adhered to set timescales or had it been delayed?  Were current timescales for implementation being met?

·                     Did the Youth Offending Team (YOT) continue to experience problems and delays with “Connectivity” (the software which provides a secure connection with the YJB and other YOTs)?

·                     Why were there problems with Connectivity?  Was this an internal or external issue and what was being done to resolve it?

·                     How long had the gap in performance reporting been?

·                     What action had been taken following guidance from Corporate IT that contracts with vendors should tie up so that there was clearer identification of implementation responsibilities?

·                     How long would it take for the new Case Management System to be fully functional?

·                     How had difficulties with the implementation of the new software impacted on staff morale and their ability to carry out their responsibilities?

·                     Would it be advisable for the implementation process to be overseen by an external body?

Delays in implementation following the initial inspection and the decision to implement a new system in 2012 had been caused by a number of factors, namely:

·                     co-ordinating the project with other important work in the YOT;

·                     the fact that the date of implementation was close to the date of the change in IT provider;

·                     ambitious timescales and the need to allow more time for testing and improvement prior to going live.

This situation had been continuously monitored at monthly Board meetings, and an action plan was put in place to resolve the significant issues that remained.  The action plan was completed at May 2016.  In the meanwhile, the YOT team continued to work closely with Corporate IT and the new IT supplier to monitor the situation.

Joint working with the new IT supplier, Sopra Steria, had led to improvements, however, the outdated IT infrastructure continued to cause problems with the system.  Most of the issues experienced by the YOT team had now been resolved, and it was anticipated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

Report of the Corporate Director, People Services.

The Committee considered the report which set out the statutory Adults Services Complaints Annual report and the report of the Children and Families Services Complaints Annual report, together.

It was noted that paragraph 8, on page 94 had been included in the report in error.

Members asked the following questions, which were responded to accordingly:

·                     What was the nature of the complaints which had been escalated to stages 2 and 3?

·                     Both reports cited staff conduct (attitude & behaviour) as reasons for some of the complaints received.  What had been done to address this?

·                     What was the reason for the high level of MP and Councillor enquiries managed by the Complaints Team?

·                     What was being done to ensure complaints did not get referred on the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)?

The nature and complexity of complaints varied.  In some cases, it could be said that these were not complaints in the formal sense, but often turned out to be complex queries or even a cry for help.  Many of these were resolved through timely early intervention.  For a stage 1 complaint, officers would meet and have discussions with the service user or carer in question, to ascertain what the issues were and what outcome was desired by the complainant.  It was important to note that a large number of complaints were resolved early or withdrawn.

In the case of Adults, a stage 2 complaint would be referred on to a senior manager for further investigation.  The Children’s Act required stage 2 complaints to be looked at by an independent investigator.  Stage 3 complaints related exclusively to children’s services complaints, which required the setting up of a complaints Review Panel.

The disproportionately large number of complaints against staff, were investigated, and very few found in favour of the client or complainant.  Many of these related to unfavourable news (such as a child being removed from the family home), or a service not being provided.  In cases where the staff had been found to be at fault, additional supervision was put in place and further training undertaken by the staff member.

Although the number of representations made by MPs and Councillors had reduced for Children’s Services this was not the case for Adults.  This may be because the residents were increasingly confident about consulting their MPs and Councillors.  These cases were often more complex.  An officer undertook to look into this and provide further information about the nature of these complaints to Members after the meeting.

Managing clients’ expectations was a key aspect in reducing the number of complaints being registered.  In the cases referred to he LGO, although mediation and officer meetings were offered, the clients did not take up the offer.

The Committee requested that in the future draft copies of all reports being considered by the Committee should be sent to both the relevant Scrutiny Lead Member and the Scrutiny Performance Member ahead of the agenda being published.

The Portfolio Holder for Adults and OIder People congratulated officers for their work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

Report of the Divisional Director, Strategic Commissioning.

The Committee considered a report which set out the draft scope for the Scrutiny Challenge Panel on homelessness and to agree either option A or B set out in the officer report.

The Policy Lead Member for Environment and Enterprise, who had chaired the Scrutiny Leadership Group (SLG) meeting, advised that:

·                     the timelines for the two Challenge Panels had yet to be agreed by SLG;

·                     the availability or lack of housing stock was a major contributing factor to the current levels of homelessness in the borough and this needed to be looked at by the Challenge Panel;

·                     SLG considered that the remit was too wide to be undertaken in any depth by a single Challenge Panel, therefore, two Panels had been proposed.

A Member, who was not a Member of the Committee made the following points:

·                     it was vital that the Challenge Panel consider issues of supply and demand in to relation housing;

·                     whether the measures being implemented by the Housing Department were in fact tackling the issue of homelessness;

·                     undertaking two challenge panels on the same topic would not be an effective use of limited time and resources.

Following a proposal from the Chair, it was agreed that in the first instance, option A be agreed and that the Committee request the Chair and Vice Chair to modify the scope of the Challenge Panel at later date, should it prove necessary. 

RESOLVED:  That

(1)          option A  be implemented;

(2)          the need for a second Challenge (option B) be further considered at the next meeting of the Scrutiny Leadership Group;

(3)          the Chair of the Review be Councillor Jeff Anderson;

(4)          the timing of this Challenge Panel, its membership and associated reporting arrangements be agreed at the next meeting of the Scrutiny Leadership Group.

In accordance with the provisions of rule 14.1 (Part 4B) of the Constitution:

RESOLVED:  At 9.59 pm to continue until 10.05 pm.