Minutes for Children & Young People Scrutiny Commission meeting, Apr 6 2009, 7.00PM official page

1.1  Apologies were received from Cllr Akhoon, Cllr Landau, Mr Bergman, Ms Ludlow and Cllr Icoz (Lateness).

2.1  Urgent Items

There were no urgent items.

2.3   Order of business

The order of business was as per the agenda, although the Chair stated that Item 4 would be taken at a later date.

3.1  There were none.

4.1  The Chair proposed that the minutes be agreed at the next meeting as he had a number of comments to make on them and didn’t want to delay the main items.

5.1  Cllr Siddiqui explained that he had recently attended an open day and presentation at the Linden Children’s Centre and provided the Commission with copies of the slides which were used. It was explained that the Centre is purpose built and provides the following services:

·  Health care providers,

·  Opportunities for volunteering,

·  Midwife services (both anti-natal and post-natal)

·  Childcare services

·  Two social workers,

·  Other locally commissioned services,

·  dentistal and nutritional advice

5.2  The Chair asked Cllr Siddiqui whether he felt the Centre to be a leading example or if improvements were required.

5.3  Cllr Siddiqui explained that although the facilities on offer were excellent and the presentation was of a high standard. He further explained that the open day attendance was very positive with a large turnout of various communities. He felt that this Linden Centre was a leading example of an excellent facility.

5.4   Cllr Krishna asked if there was any mention in the presentation of the Centre’s Ofsted review. The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services then explained that whilst the open day and presentation may have been a success, it should be noted that Ofsted describes the Centre as ‘satisfactory’ and advised the Commission to exercise caution in how it might commend the Centre’s effectiveness.

5.5  Cllr Siddiqui commented that he was unaware if there was any mention of the Ofsted review.

Presentation and interactive session.

6.1  The Chair welcomed Eric de Mello, Interim Head of Preventative Services, London Borough of Hackney (LBH), Liz Hughes and Guillaume Volpi, both Tier 2 Social Workers, LBH, and invited them to make their presentation.

6.2  Mr de Mello explained that the Common Assessment Form (CAF) provides a framework for multi-disciplinary working and is used in conjunction with parents as part of the Tier 2 CAMHS model.  The CAF will also be used by a number of organisations operating at Tier 1 such as childcare providers or schools

6.3  Mr de Mello explained that two anonymous case summaries will be distributed to the Members to read for 5 minutes along with blank CAF forms. He then asked the Members to form two groups and work together to complete the CAFs using only the information available to them in the case studies.  Ms Hughes and Mr Volpi worked with each group to give advice on using the form.

6.4  Mr de Mello explained that it is important to determine from reading the case what the risks are to a child’s development; whether there are any risks of harm to the child, and if any specific needs are evident such as additional educational requirements. Once these are determined resources can then be allocated to improve the situation of the child.

6.5  Mr de Mello further explained that the CAF assessment will determine whether further assistance is needed from other services at Tier 3. If the social worker deems that specialists are required, then this is a legislative priority that this is undertaken.

6.6  The Chair explained to the Members that he had asked Mr de Mello to prepare an interactive session for the meeting so that the Members can obtain an understanding of how a CAF form is completed at first hand rather than having it described via a presentation.

6.7  Mr de Mello separated the Members into groups of two and provided each group with copies of the Common Assessment Form and an anonymised case study. Ms Hughes and Mr Volpi facilitated each group and were available to answer any questions the Members had.

6.8  Mr de Mello advised Members to first fill in the strengths and needs then the action plan section of the CAF in relation to their case.

6.9  Following the group work, the Chair reconvened the Commission and invited Members to comment on the experience of completing the forms and ask any questions of the officers present.

6.10  Questions and Answers

The Chair highlighted a sentence from case study two which stated that “all family members showed a positive commitment to [child] K and the interactions between the family were warm.”  Cllr Taylor noted this indication of a warmth and commitment which existed within what is clearly a complex case.  The Chair questioned how anyone could ascertain the truth of these feelings through a single visit and suggested rather that this why action plans require time and knowledge in their development.

Mr de Mello concurred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Discussion item.

7.1  The Chair invited Members to consider the eight main themes which have emerged from the evidence heard in meetings for the CAMHS review to date. These themes directly relate to the agreed terms of reference.  The Chair suggested that Members take 10 minutes to read through the evidence.

7.2  The Chair then asked the Members if there was anything further they would like to include in the review that is not been mentioned, or anything that should be removed.

7.3  Cllr Krishna clarified that the title for this agenda item states that the conclusions were also those of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, which is not the case.

7.4  Ms Neidich commented that the first theme ‘early intervention to prevent mental health later in life’ should be amended so that it refers to mental ‘ill’ health.

7.5  Cllr Kelly questioned the suggestion that the Borough’s Turkish/Kurdish community had been forced to move here from abroad.

7.6  The Chair confirmed that this was an accurate quotation of the evidence provided by Ms Tas at the previous meeting.  Cllr Icoz added that it was helpful for this comment to be made as it remains true in many cases.

7.7  Cllr Kelly suggested it be clarified that members of that community are often forced to leave their Turkish/Kurdish home for the UK but not necessarily Hackney.

7.8  Cllr Demirci commented that a majority of the non English speaking Turkish/Kurdish communities are first generation, whereas second generation residents from those communities are likely to learn or know the language.

7.9  Cllr Kelly directed the Members attention to the theme on lack of funding and explained that in her experience it is very common for community organisations to suggest that funding is a problem. Cllr Kelly believes that community organisations should think outside the box as money is not always important and networking is often the key to success.

7.10  Cllr Demirci explained that organisations such as Derman are overwhelmed with referrals and do not have the resources to keep up with the referrals.

7.11  Ms Neidich commented that in her experience working with schools she found that working with Kids Company to be very useful and was concerned that officers present at the January meeting appeared not be familiar with the organisation.

7.12  Cllr Kelly directed the Members attention the evidence presented by Ms Walters (18 March 2009 meeting), and explained that Norwood does not have a monopoly on Jewish mental health services and explained that there were several other providers operating in the Jewish Orthodox community .

7.13  The Chair explained that Derman and Norwood had been invited to the previous meeting to provide a flavour of the issues faced by voluntary sector bodies and their views were not intended to represent the whole community nor sector.

7.14  Cllr Demiric clarified that, in the case of Derman, they are the single main voluntary organisation representing the interests of the Turkish/Kurdish communities in Hackney.

7.15  Cllr Krishna explained that Kids Company,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  There was none.