Minutes:
CST became operative on 1st October 2015 and was based in St Martin’s Place. Its offices had been refurbished and new IT had been installed, but the process of transition was still being completed. Governance arrangements had been agreed with many parties involved in the discussions. Key performance indicators had also been agreed, although the targets for these KPIs had not. The targets for years 2 and 3 of the contract would be agreed by the end of March 2016 (with year 2 defined as starting 1st April 2016). At the time of the meeting the baseline assessment was still being completed; the findings of this initial audit would be reported to a joint meeting of the Panel and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12th January 2016. Ofsted had also begun an inspection of Children’s Services and the completion of this should add robustness to the findings of the baselining exercise.
A monthly Strategic Monitoring Board had been established, consisting of SBC’s Head of Director of Children’s Services, SBC’s Commissioner for Children and Education and the Chair and Chief Executive of CST. This forum allowed both CST and SBC to be held to account; CST was not operating in isolation, and even where it held responsibility the work of SBC had a significant impact on its remit. The first meeting of this Board had been held, with the body becoming more formalised as it became established. At present, the Client Side Team had not been put in place. This Team would be funded by the Department for Education (DfE).
The Children’s Commissioner reported to the Secretary of State and was charged with supporting improvement activity. The only previous local authority subject to a similar process had terminated the role of Children’s Commissioner once the Trust went live. However, Slough would continue to have a Children’s Commissioner until the end of December 2016 at the earliest. CST also had its own non-executive board, with two sub groups (finance and equality & innovation). The sub group on equality and innovation would be funded by DfE.
CST was working on a new social care model, with CST’s Chief Executive working with staff to deliver this. Staff had been engaged with the process, allowing good progress to be made. The final overall structure was likely to involve fewer layers of management, with one Assistant Director role having already been deleted and some other movements within staffing having taken place. The high number of interim post holders allowed for greater flexibility in creating the new staffing structure, with much emphasis being placed on the initial stages of receiving referrals and initiating action. However, MASH partners were in agreement that they were not yet ready to establish MASH, with audits having substantiated this conclusion.
The Panel raised the following points in discussion:
· With regards to ‘front door’ referrals, thresholds had not changed.
· DfE had been in receipt of SBC’s submitted request for funding for 6 weeks. However, there was no absolute deadline for DfE’s response.
· The Client Side Team would consist of contract managers and would also examine the roles retained by SBC since the transition to CST.
· The exact level of the budget from DfE was unclear, however it could be estimated as a low six-figure sum annually as it consisted of 3 roles at a non-senior level. At present, current resources were being used to cover these roles but this was acknowledged not to be the permanent solution. DfE also paid for the renovation of St Martin’s Place in preparation of CST staff.
· Councillors had felt uninformed about changes to the plans for MASH. However, if the message had been given that it was on course for completion this had not been the case; the co-location of SBC and police staff was not in itself confirmation that all parties were working on establishment of MASH.
· During the transition from SBC to CST, a high level of work had been undertaken to ensure that there was neither a duplication nor omission of responsibilities in the new roles being created. However, transitional work was still being undertaken and it was imperative that clarity was sought on roles and responsibilities to ensure that all areas were covered appropriately.
· In contrast with Doncaster MBC, SBC had retained its Children’s Commissioner given the fact that more services were contracted out in Slough than Doncaster (e.g. Cambridge Education for schools). CST would take over the work of Cambridge Education in September 2016, and the Children’s Commissioner would oversee the considerable work required on this matter.
Resolved: that the verbal update be noted.