Area Coordination Management Meeting

Ashton

Minutes

Time: 10.00am 
Date: 22 November 2007
Venue: Connexions, Stamford Street, Ashton

Present:

• Julie Lord - Area Coordinator
• Tracy Wood - Area Coordinator
• Jane-Ann Birkitt - Stamford High School
• Harvey Hudson - Assessment and Family Support Team
• Annie O'Malley - Connexions
• Mary Clowrey - Education Welfare Service
• Jane Dufty - Inclusive Services

Note Taker: Rachel Lees

Item 1: Welcome

Jane-Ann welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made around the table.

Item 2: Apologies

The following apologies were received:

• Anne Okwei - Children's Centres
• Pam Chadwick - Tameside Youth Service
• Sue Warburton - Canon Johnson Primary School

Item 3: Notes of last meeting and matters arising

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2007 were approved as a true and correct record.

Matters Arising:

Item 4 – Action Item: Karen had been off work for four weeks so Harvey would arrange a meeting,

Item 5 – Action Item: Julie would email referral forms to members.

Item 6 – Action Item: Julie had investigated the piece of work undertaken by Community Safety but it did not cover what the team wanted to do so had not proved useful.

Item 4: Area Action Plan

Item 4.1: Updates

Action Plan 5.3: Models of integrated working

The three models of integrated working (click icon above) had been extracted from the ECM website and are for discussion as to future ways of working. Tracy noted that the SMT would consider the models at an “away day” on 21 December.

Tracy briefly summarised the document as follows:

Model 1, Multi Agency Panel – ideal when all agencies need to be involved e.g. Children with complex needs but getting commitment from all the people all the time in other circumstances may be a challenge.

Model 2, Multi Agency team - co-working can be effective when there were children with specific types of issues e.g. YOT but may be less effective with children who had diverse problems or range of low level problems

Model 3, Integrated Services – Potential governance issues and need to consider how to cover the full age group of children and young people otherwise there may be insufficient staff to achieve in some services.

Annie

• The age range issue was interesting. Integrated youth support service meetings had debated what constituted youth support services. Greater Manchester Authority had a building run by the DCA which gave good examples of integrated working. However, different authorities worked with different ranges, from 0 to 25. What had Tameside decided on?
• Information about the individual was crucial. JASPER would help to a certain extent but if the correct information was available then a meeting was not always necessary. Elements of records would be appropriate to all services and others would be exclusive.

Julie

• The YOT rep for Dukinfield / Stalybridge / Mossley had identified a need from age 7. Children's Services would look at potential provision through the commissioning process. The original integration document wanted a shared building and the SMT would reflect the original integration document and other issues raised. A formal consultation process would take place after 21 December but there was concern that integration was not high on Tameside's agenda because of the impending JAR.

Tracy

• There were challenges in all models around issues of governance and staff. Tameside's vision was no longer clear and the move to Children's Trust arrangements was a challenge. There was a need to recognise where things were not working well and to share good practice. Feedback from agencies/ services on their preferred model is required.

Mary

• Although information would be made available on JASPER it was essential that personal contact was not lost.
• Had the team talked about integrated working since ECM? Her greatest concern was a loss of professionalism with multi agency teams. She was looking with interest at the way Manchester operate as they fit into a multi-agency panel who looked at issues and areas of need with the most appropriate person taking action.

Jane-Ann

• The database was massive and guidance as to what information was necessary was required to avoid duplication.

Harvey

• Did any other agency have involvement with Integrated Children's Services (ICS)? The information had replaced SWIFT and could be transferred to JASPER.

Tracy asked that team members return to their teams and share their thoughts on integrated working prior to emailing herself or Julie with their comments before 21 December 2007.

Conclusions:

Action Plan 2.1 and 2.2: Integrated processes – statistical update

The statistical reports provided a snapshot of activity as at 31 October 2007. Geographical statistics showed that in the Borough there was information to share on 247 children, 23 lead professionals assigned, 13 actions taken and 3 CAFs covering 3 children. There was an increase in general statistics since October and Tracy reported that common processes workshops will be developed in 2008.

A geographical map of where entries were placed had been prepared. Surprise was expressed that there seemed to be gaps in the Hurst Cross area. Tracy to approach Jane Forrest to see if future reports could be prepared with postcode information.

Feedback from Jane Forrest had been received regarding the quality of CAFs and a decision had been taken that a group of practitioners from differing agencies would be seconded (with backfill) to act as CAF champions. Practitioner workshops would be provided and it was hoped that a higher quality of CAFs would be received as a result. Venues and dates would be arranged from Feb/March 2008.

Harvey thought that more CAFs should have been completed for Ashton but Julie confirmed that the abbreviation “CAF” had caused confusion with Children and Family meetings. However, JASPER training was being rolled out and clarification of the CAF training should be visited as a future agenda item.

Mary had data on referrals for many services broken down by EWO but these were not fed into JASPER.

Conclusions:

Action Plan 4.4: Change for Children Events and the Participation Network

The first Change for Children event had taken place at Waterloo Children's Centre in Ashton on 17 October. It was deemed a success with about 50 parents dropping in and it was interesting that some parents had attended in the afternoon with younger children and then had returned with older children after picking them up from school. It was supposed to tie in with the formal opening of the Children's Centre but this was called off. The format had changed from presentations to more informal stalls (Connexions, Children's Centre, Health, Sports, voluntary sector, Youth Service, SID and CIS) with free face painting, a pamper session for parents and free healthy snacks from the PCT health team. Area Coordinators feel that that this model is more suitable and can be rolled out across the areas, possibly on the back of existing events to pool resources and make it more cost effective. The Participation Network run by NCH had agreed to manage the face to face consultation for the event and will now cover all the other geographical areas by Christmas as separate consultations (consisting of three questions based on unmet need) and record this systematically for us. The Change for Children events will now be known as “Neighbourhood Networking” events.

Julie thanked Sue Higginson of the Children's Centre for being pro-active with publicity and Jane-Ann suggested that learning mentors would be the appropriate person to get involved. Oxford Park and Holy Trinity area were raised as potential future venues.

Item 5: Consultation to inform the Area Profiles

Julie reported that consultation on unmet need had taken place during Parenting Week at the Flowery Centre, Hyde Town Hall , Waterloo and Hurst and consultation will take place across all areas of the borough. Information will be collated and reported at Christmas which will inform the commissioning process and will be included in the Area Profile of Need.

A form to collate information had been devised and anyone who took part in consultation exercises was asked to consult using the form. Julie had asked for the opportunity to promote the form at a Whole Service meeting.

Conclusions:

Item 6: Area Action Plan monitoring update

Tracy highlighted progress made on areas of the Action Plan since the last meeting. Most progress was around Change for Children events and Common Processes.

The Audit Commission has been commissioned by TMBC to undertake an audit of frontline staff who will be asked to complete an on-line questionnaire to make judgements regarding the progress of integration. Team members were asked to facilitate staff to complete the questionnaire which will go live on 26 November 2007.

Conclusions:

Items 7 and 8: Staff Audit

Ashton Pilot - Progress

A database had been piloted to log which agencies worked with young people and how often. Learning managers had started to input data but there were issues surrounding IT access, updates and restricting access. Input would continue until the end of the academic year by which time a robust model would be available to take to the academy. Information would be input by postcode and areas of unmet need could be targeted. The data could identify children at risk in the future.

Annie thought that it was important to identify agencies who could provide young people with continuous support ie outside school and Jane-Ann agreed that support was lost during the secondary/tertiary transition.

Action:

Conclusions:

Item 9: Any Other Business

Tracy thought that it was necessary to review membership. Rita Jones, the Locality Services Coordinator for Ashton within the PCT had never been invited to meetings. Regeneration partners were not represented and it was suggested that Carl Kelsall or Karen Buttigan of St Peters/SPY and a representative from Broadoak be invited.

Jane-Ann noted that there was no regular representative from YOT.

Conclusions:

Item 10: Calendar of meetings for the year and venue for next meeting

Meetings would be planned about the “be healthy” outcome and members were asked to offer venues.

• Thursday 10 January 2008 from 10:00 to 12:00 am at St Peter's Childrens Centre
• Thursday 20 March 2008 from 10:00 to 12:00 am at Stamford High School
• Thursday 15 May 2008 from 10:00 to 12:00 am at Rose Hill Childrens Centre
• Thursday 3 July 2008 from 10:00 to 12:00 am at Canon Johnson C of E Primary School
• Thursday 25 September 2008 from 10:00 to 12:00 am Venue TBA
• Thursday 20 November 2008 from 10:00 to 12:00 am Venue TBA

Jane-Ann thanked everyone for their attendance and the meeting closed at 11:50 pm.

Glossary

• ACMT Area Co-ordination Management Team
• APIR (profile) Assessment, Planning, Implement and Review
• CAF Common Assessment Framework
• CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
• CMM Capability Maturity Model
• CLT Children's Leadership Team
• CWDC Children's Workforce Development Council
• CYP Children and Young People
• CYPSP Children and Young People Strategic Partnership
• DDA Denton , Droylsden and Audenshaw
• ECM Every Child Matters
• EIG Early Intervention Group
• ISA Information Sharing and Assessment
• ISSP Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme
• JASPER Joint Assessment System for Prevention and Early Referral
• LA Local Authority
• OBA Outcome based accountability
• PCT Primary Care Trust
• SENCO Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator
• SID Service Information Directory
• T3SC Tameside Third Sector Coalition
• TOR Terms of Reference
• YOF Youth Opportunity Fund
• YOT Youth Offending Team