Supporting Children and Young People to Achieve Economic Wellbeing

Minutes

Time: 9.30am
Date: 17th July 2007
Venue: Flowery Centre, Hyde

Present:

• Sheila Piazza, Chair
• Bob Shaw, Area Coordinator and AEW lead
• Andrew Leah, Housing Services Manager
• Annie O'Malley, Connexions
• Lucy Davies, Access & Equality
• Caroline Gregory, Priorities Neighbourhood Renewal Officer
• Phil Spence, Community Economic Development Manager
• Alan Franco, Head of Welfare Rights, Community Legal Services
• Jackie Taylor, Early Intervention Team, Pennine Care (substitute for Lesley Freeman )

Note Taker: Bob Shaw

1. Welcome and introductions

Members were welcomed

2. Apologies

• Vincent Ward, 14-19 Strategic Lead, School Improvement Service
• John Symington, 14-19 Strategic Coordinator
• Lorna Grennan Transition Coordinator, Learning Disabilities
• Alison Cresswell, Partnership Director, LSC
• Tony Kay, Partnership Manager, LSC
• Steve Openshaw, Inclusion Services
• Lesley Freeman, Manager for Early Intervention Team, Pennine Care
• Candice Langley, Rathbones

3. Minutes of last meeting

Approved

4. Matters arising

The children's leadership team were presented with the issues raised about commissioning and the need to think about the partnership relationship and communication diagram.

5. Theme for the meeting

1. Action is taken to ensure that young people have decent housing (5.5)
    
   
   1. Report cards
      Andrew presented the 4 report cards previously circulated to members. See item 5.1.3
   2. Presentation
      Andrew 's presentation is attached with these minutes. See item 5.1.3
   3. Discussion and judgement
      The meeting delegated the Chair and lead officer to propose provisional judgements (this section) and improvement actions (next section: 5.1.4) for the next meeting. The next meeting will confirm or amend these.
      
      Report Card 1 of 4 : Length of stay in bed and breakfast accommodation (weeks) ( BVPI 183a)
      
      AEW group judgement
      That the data in this report card be considered
      • heartening for those families that were considered homeless unintentionally and for whom there is a statutory duty on the LA
      • troubling for those families that were considered intentionally homeless and for whom there is no statutory duty
      
      Report Card 2 of 4 : Length of stay in hostels (BVPI 183b)
      
      AEW group judgement
      That the data in this report card be considered heartening
      
      Report Card 3 of 4 : The proportion of teenage parents unable to live with family or partner who are offered supervised semi-independent housing with support
      
      AEW group judgement
      That the data in this report card be considered heartening - but see improvement actions below
      
      Report Card 4 of 4 : The proportion of dependant children living in non decent housing
      
      AEW group judgement
      That the data in this report card be considered heartening - but see improvement actions below
      

      There then followed a lengthy discussion that included the following observations, questions and issues:

      • How are support issues for vulnerable young people (e.g. teenage parents) linked together?
        Post-script: The Department for Children, Schools and Families published in July 2007 Teenage Parents Next Steps: Guidance for Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts ( see http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/resources-and-practice/IG00250/ ). Reference is made here to supported housing providers and consideration of how to support fathers and to promote better relationships between resident young mothers and their partners.
      • How can we influence the forthcoming housing survey in order to collect data about children and families to inform planning?
      • How can we (the C&YP Partnership) influence commissioning of supported services (e.g. floating support scheme, future family intervention projects)?
      • How can we enhance our desire to improve continuity for dependent children in temporary housing?
      • The adaptations service for children with a disability constantly juggles issues of supply and demand.
      • There is an observable increase in demand for adaptations in recent years - clearly related to improving survival rates following traumatic births and illness.
      • The adaptations service is considered to be under funded but it also clear that this service does make a real difference to children's lives.
      • The housing strategy does not have a separate section (or chapter) on children, young people and families.
      • The Housing, Health and Safety Rating System has limitations
      • There are limitations to the operation of the decency standard. It is flawed by reference to consideration of what be considered ‘reasonable'.
      • The overcrowding standard has not changed in many years and relies on children under 10 being considered as ½ value compared to an adult who has 1 value and children under 1 considered to have zero value.
      • How can we go beyond the standard?
      • When consider housing builds or adaptations do we need to consider space for children to learn and study?
      • Work to influence RSLs (Registered Social Landlords) is considered key for adaptation related issues
      • New Charter Housing has £50,000 for piloting work around family intervention and support. This is an accommodation based schemes but this does not attract capital funds. The scheme will be targeted at families in temporary accommodation and build upon the floating support service and family intervention. The Council is being approached for additional funding to support the scheme.
      • Families who fall into mortgage arrears, it was noted, are particularly vulnerable to private companies who will offer to buy the property and re-let it back to the family. Subsequent rent arrears can lead to eviction. This is not easily monitored and is difficult area to control.
      • The private house for rent sector generally is difficult to control - we rely on tenants to become good witnesses in difficult and vulnerable situations.
      • How can employment and income support services bear down more heavily on vulnerable families?
      • Can the new common processes help us to identify vulnerable families and children earlier than we do currently? How might the common assessment better serve such vulnerable families? How can we coordinate our responses?
      • There is a Tameside homelessness conference in September.
      • What role do Housing Options have as gatekeepers to services?
      • Housing options service tends to focus on homelessness and there is a need to develop and scope out what we might want from a service that can focus on early intervention and prevention.
      • We noted other LAs highlighted as good models of practice in preventive practice - Croydon, Nottingham City and noted John Hughes ' investigations in this regard to influence the development of future contracting for services.
      • Is there a role for Children's Centres and Extended Schools and other universal services to help provide an early intervention, preventive and information/signposting service?
      • It was noted that turnover of school children on roles in particular schools in particular localities is often related to housing issues.
      • The current BVPIs for this theme will not be required in forthcoming years.
      • What is required to change towards a more preventative agenda?
      • There is no travellers site in Tameside - children of travellers remain a more vulnerable group as a result
      • Vulnerable children of political and asylum seeking families are managed through a Home Office contract - how do we influence the development of the service specification and future contracting?
      • The issue of intentionally homeless as opposed to unintentionally homeless was considered irrelevant in the context of all children and where the LA duty to care for all children and secure improved outcomes for all children
      • Can the PSHE curriculum help to influence attitudes and to housing and housing support?
      • Where can we make a difference? By joining things up in more coordinated response to need
      • Do we need to review/instate our own key performance indicators?
      • What is the role of Health Visitors here?

      AEW group judgement

      That the data in this presentation be considered heartening - but see improvement actions below

   4. Future action
      
      Proposed Improvement Actions
      • The preparation of a chapter for inclusion in the Tameside Housing Strategy focusing on children, young people and families
      • The introduction of the new (ECM) common processes to
        • better enable the identification of children and families vulnerable to homelessness or facing deficient housing circumstances
        • better enable the coordination of services to this vulnerable group
        • inform the development of an early intervention and prevention housing service with a focus on children, young people and families
      • The development of local improvement actions and performance indicators to assess progress
      
      Note: further work needs to be undertaken to further plan and allocate tasks for these actions

6. Reflection on Process

It was agreed that the process was positive and useful though time available to work at this in more depth was felt to be inadequate. Concern was expressed about the agenda for the next meeting and the complexities of the theme. It was agreed that the next and future meetings should commence at 9.00 and conclude at 12.00 to allow sufficient time to work through two dense but related themes.

7. AOB

None

8. Date of next meeting

9.00 Wednesday Sept 26th 2007
Venue; Flowery Centre

Special notes:

See updated programme below and note changes to start and end times and added venue

Supporting children and young people to Achieve Economic Wellbeing

Priorities and reporting 2007/08

Programme of work and nominated leads