Agenda item

To consider a report of the Corporate Director of People and Integration.

The report provides the priorities articulated within the Portfolio Agreements, which form the basis for regular in-year reporting with the Agreements being aligned with new Cabinet Portfolio Responsibilities agreed at Annual Council in May. Work has since been undertaken to review and update portfolio priorities in conjunction with the new Cabinet. The report presents the draft 2022/23 Agreement for the Children, Families and Education Portfolio for consideration and comment by the Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review, comment on and note the report.

Officer contacts:

Gaynor Ward, Strategy and Performance Manager

gaynor.ward@stockport.gov.uk  (0161 474 3186)

Gill Dixon, CSS Manager, Specialist) Finance – Children’s Social Care

gill.dixon@stockport.gov.uk  (0161 474 3886)

Peter Hughes, CSS Manager, Specialist) Finance – Education & Schools

peter.hughes@stockport.gov.uk (0161 474 3947)

The Corporate Director of People and Integration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing the priorities articulated within the Portfolio Agreements, which form the basis for regular in-year reporting with the Agreements being aligned with new Cabinet Portfolio Responsibilities agreed at Annual Council in May. Work has since been undertaken to review and update portfolio priorities in conjunction with the new Cabinet.

The report presents the draft 2022/23 Agreement for the Children, Families and Education Portfolio for consideration and comment by the Committee.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Family and Education Services attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

Portfolio Summary

·       Members commented about the ‘Guarantee that was supported by the £560 million investment was a national grant and not just for Stockport with further details to be shared relating to the details of the grant.

·       Clarification was sought on how the national ‘Youth Guarantee’ was monitored. In response, it was noted that the Stockport Family Partnership Board, the SEND Improvement Board and the Quality Assurance Performance Board were all involved in planned monitoring with governance arrangements in place and oversight.

Priority Once – All babies and children are given the very best start in life by their parents and carers and start school ready to learn

·       Further details were requested relating to CFSE.5 – Percentage take up of the 2 Year Childcare Offer and the increase 2019/20 actual target of 103/1%.

·       Members enquired whether any areas of concern had been identified when monitoring the data and statistics. In response, it was commented that the data had not yet been released and that once it is released it would be difficult to compare from 2019/20 due to the pandemic.

Priority Two - All children and young people are well prepared for adulthood and engage in education, employment and training

·       Members enquired about the targets for attainment and the pre and post pandemic levels. It was commented that there was a national target included the ‘white paper’, with the targets driving the right activity for the long term to establish positive outcomes. The targets need to be looked at including the ‘stretch targets’ to agree where things need to be and how to get there.

·       Further data was requested relating to the details that was beneath the data including the performance of gender and disadvantaged communities. In response, it was stated that some KS2 data had already been released, but further details was expected.

·       Clarification was sought relating to the low target for CFSE.26 and CFSE.27 which was quite good. In response, it was noted that the ‘unknown figures’ was really low and it was followed up but work was still ongoing.

·       Members sought clarity relating to CFSE.10 and CFSE.11 and Ofsted Inspections. It was noted that inspection activity was paused during the pandemic, but further details would be included in future reports.

Priority Three – All children, young people and families have access to an effective integrated early help offer

·       Members enquired about CSFE.63 and the increase in target for 2021/22. In response, it was stated that the reduction was due to the pandemic and the closure of schools, but now that schools have reopened there has been an immediate impact on the early years assessment. Some challenges have been identified and the assessments will be ongoing going forward.

·       Data was requested relating to the pupils who were accessing the mental health in schools programme.

Priority Four - Children and families with special educational needs and

disabilities (SEND) receive the best possible support at the right time to

ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved

Further details were sought relating to CFSE.62 and how it related to covid.

Priority Five - All children and young people live safely and happily within their

families, there are fewer family breakdowns, and rates of crime and anti-social

behaviour reduce

Members enquired about ‘restorative justice’ and whether it was still used. It was confirmed that it was still used with the support of the police and liaison officers working with young people and including referrals throughout a process to divert young people and children from the criminal system.

Financial Resources and Monitoring

·       Clarification was sought relating to the unaccompanied asylum children and the impact. In response, it was stated that there had been an increasing amount of children coming to Stockport following the national scheme. Stockport currently had 18 unaccompanied asylum children with a few more over 18 who then become care leavers, currently that number is 14.

·       Members expressed concerns relating to the rising prices of accommodation for young people and enquired about comparative data. It was noted that there were investigations being conducted by the Government into the private homes market for children. Average costs had continued to rise year on year, but in comparison to other authorities in the North West, Stockport Council’s costs were the lowest and that was mainly due to the robustness of the monitoring.

·       There was a request for clarification relating to the detached youth workers and how they linked into other areas of the Council. In response, it was stated that there was a well co-ordinated collaborated approach with numerous organisation dealing with the youth challenges.

RESOLVED –  That the report be noted.