Committee: Children’s Trust Board
Date: 19th June 2015
Subject:
Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3: Governance arrangements
for continued implementation
Lead officer: Jane McSherry
Lead member: Maxi Martin
Contact officer:
Recommendations:
A. A decision is taken as the most appropriate governance model for the continued
implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1.
To provide and overview of the initial governance arrangements for the
Children and Families Act implementation and reasons for changing these
1.2.
To propose two possible models for future strategic governance of the
Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3 implementation
1.3.
To make a recommendation on the model for future strategic governance of
the Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3 implementation
2
INITIAL GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
2.1.
The Children’s Trust was the key board for the implementation of the Every
Child Matters agenda and has been the strategic driver for the Children and
Families Act.
2.2.
During 2014, management and oversight of the implementation of the SEN
reforms in the Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3 was through a
Programme Board, focussed on initial planning for implementation. The
Board was supported by a number of workstream groups (detailed below):
2.3.

Assessment Framework and revised SEN Code of Practice;

Education, Health and Care Plan

Local Offer

Personal budgets

Preparation for adulthood

Workforce development
These workstream groups included representatives from a range of partner
agencies and parents who were an integral part of these groups. The Board
and workstream groups were disbanded towards the end of 2014 in order for
us to take stock and consider how best to govern the next stages of
implementation. Parents are keen and it is right that they play a role at a
strategic level in shaping services as well as being involved in detailed
developments as part of the change programme. To that end a group was
convened in January, however key agencies have raised concerns re
servicing that group in addition to other partnership structures. Further
practice and service development across a range of partners is required to
ensure the implementation of the act continues. We are therefore looking to
see how best to align strategic oversight of the C&F Act implementation
alongside existing partnership structures.
3
PROPOSED MODELS OF GOVERNANCE MOVING FORWARD
3.1.
Many of the elements of the work to implement the Children and Families
Act 2014 Part 3 has already commenced, for example: Education, Health
and Care Planning; the Local Offer website is in place; the transport element
of the personal budgets is ready to be implemented and joint commissioning
is being developed. However there is much work still to be undertaken, key
timescales to meet and a continued need to engage with all stakeholders. It
is essential that robust and appropriate governance arrangements are in
place to monitor and track the partnerships progress in implementing the
different elements of the programme.
3.2.
Feedback from partners indicates that a model of governance replicating the
initial arrangements is unworkable in relation to effectively resourcing such a
complicated and disparate number of groups. However strategic partnership
governance is needed to ensure work is on track.
3.3.
Two possible options in relation to governance models are outlined below.
Option 1
3.4.
A Programme Board is developed which initiates programmes and
workstreams and provides a high level forum for parental views. All partners
would need to be represented on this group. It is proposed that this group
would report to the Children’s Trust and the Health and Well Being Board.
This has the advantage of providing a specific group with oversight of this
one area with time to consider aspects of work in depth. It has the
disadvantage of partners needing to commit to providing resources for a
specific group to ensure it is effective.
Option 2
3.5.
Currently the Children’s Trust Board has oversight of the CYP Plan and
outcomes particularly for children and young people with complex needs.
Most of the partners who were involved in the original Programme Board are
already on this group. Parents are not represented on this group but as part
of this option representative parents could join this group. Head teachers are
represented on this group but do not consistently attend. Adding governance
of the Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3 to the remit of this group may
engage head teachers with this group. This option has the advantage of
utilising a group that most partners already attend. It has the disadvantage
that this area will only be one part of the agenda and may not get the depth
of discussion needed.
3.6.
Whichever option is chosen the strategic governance will need to:

Be responsible for the overall direction and management of the
implementation to ensure it is a local solution and ‘fit for purpose’

Ensure that the implementation remains on course to deliver the
planned outcomes in the allocated timescales and to the required
quality

Commit required resources

Agree and implement policy decisions

Be ‘advocates’ of the cultural change needed

Make strategic decisions on workforce development
3.7.
Neither of these options would change existing single agency executive and
non executive structures and supporting partnership groups such as the One
Merton Group which enables detailed management decision making across
the CCG and the council including CSG, C&H and public health.
4
CONCLUSIONS
4.1.
It is proposed that option 2 is the most effective model of governance. If this
is the recommendation moving forward some changes will need to be made
and these are outlined in paragraphs 4.1. – 4.5. below.
4.2.
Additional members will need to be added to the Children’s Trust Board in
the form of parent representatives.
4.3.
It is proposed that the parent representatives are made up of four parents:
two parents from current groups representing parents of disabled children;
and two parent governors from the governing bodies of Merton schools.
4.4.
The Terms of Reference of the Children’s Trust will need to be amended to
include the new functions, priorities and membership.
4.5.
It is also proposed that additional dynamic consultation with parents and
carers is undertaken outside the Children’s Trust Board but overseen by it
and that these consultations have a clear themes to inform the work of the
Board.
5
APPENDICES – THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE
PUBLISHED WITH THIS REPORT AND FORM PART OF THE REPORT

6
Membership lists of: Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3
implementation Programme Board (disbanded end of 2014);
Children and Young People with SEN and Disabilities Partnership
Board (met once February 2015); and Children’s Trust Board
BACKGROUND PAPERS
NONE.
Appendix
MEMBERSHIPS
Children and Families Act 2014 Part 3 implementation Programme Board
(disbanded end of 2014)
Assistant Director of Education
SEN Disabilities and Inclusion Manager
Steve Langley, Housing Needs Manager
Andy Whittington, Chief Executive Merton Mencap
Jane Pettifer, NHS Continuing Care
Celia Dawson , Headteacher, Cricket Green Special School
Graham Dyson, SWL Sutton and Merton Trust
Anne Howers, Clinical Services Director Sutton and Merton
Donna Hayward-Sussex, SWLStg
Paul Ballatt, Head of Commissioning, Strategy & Performance
Jon Stone, Sutton & Merton Voluntary Community Services
Adam Doyle/Caroline Farrar, CCG Commissioning Rep
Jonathan Brown, Adult Social Care
Steve Langley, Housing Manager
Mark Clenaghan, SWLStg
Laura Wheeler, Parent Rep
Paula Jewes, Parent Rep
Margaret Worth, Parent Rep
Afua Boaten – SEN Governor Rep
Hilary Hurd – SEN Governor Rep
Yvonne Osaso – SEN Governor Rep
Gary King, Project Manager
Children and Young People with SEN and Disabilities Partnership Board (met
once February 2015)
Paul Ballatt, CSF
Heather Tomlinson, CSF
Ila Modi, CSF
Paula Jewes, CSF
Jonathan Brown, Adults
Caroline Farrar, CCG
Andrew Whittington, Merton Mencap
Sue Hennings, Kids First Parent Rep
Kathy Winton, Kids First Parent Rep
David Bartram, CCG
Marie Longhurst, CCG
Children’s Trust Board
Yvette Stanley
Cllr Maxi Martin
Jeremy Walsh
Khadiru Mahdi
Caroline Farrar
Phil Palmer
Anne Howers
Julia Groom
Tina Harvey
Paul Angeli
Nikki Morgan
Bev Giarraputo
Anne Hoblyn
Paul Ballatt
Jane McSherry
Naheed Chaudhry
Kay Eilbert
Chris Lee
Adam Doyle
Ian Beever
Andy Redfearn
Ian Petherbridge
Stuart MacLeod
Director of Children, Schools and Families
Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
Service Director, SWLSTG
Chief Executive, MVSC
Assistant Director of Commissioning and Planning, Merton
Clinical Commissioning Group
Chief Inspector, Metropolitan Police
Clinical Services Director, Sutton & Merton Community
Services/Royal Marsden
Public Health Consultant
Headteacher, Perseid School
Assistant Director for Children’s Social Care, LBM
Headteacher, Holy Trinity School
South Thames College
JobCentre Plus, South London District
Assistant Director for Commissioning, Strategy &
Performance, LBM
Assistant Director for Education, LBM
Service Manager for Policy, Planning and Performance,
LBM
Director of Public Health
Director, Environment & Regeneration
Merton Clinical Commissioning Group
MVSC
YCA – for Merton Community Empowerment Network
(CEN)
St Mark’s Family Centre – for Merton Community
Empowerment Network (CEN)
Chief Superintendant, Metropolitan Police