No disclosures of interest in matters under consideration were received. 

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2016 be signed as a correct record.

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents. 

There were no referrals made to the Committee.

The Director of Human Resources submitted Document “H” which provided an update on Bradford Council’s Workforce Development Programme 2015-2017 and presented the proposed programme for 2017-19.

The purpose of the Workforce Development training and development programme is to provide a coordinated approach to workforce development that will enable the Council to recruit, retain and develop the skills, competence and confidence of the workforce, and to ensure that every member of staff is working to full capacity and capability to achieve our key priorities.

The Director of Human Resources referred to the progress to date as outlined in Appendix 2 of the report and highlighted that; there had been a 40% response rate to the Staff Survey; the new ‘Evolve’ system would allow better recording of staff development and succession planning; the Future Leaders Programme had received a ‘highly commended’ award from the Public Sector People Managers' Association (PPMA); the Council had signed the Time to Change pledge and made a commitment to tackle mental health stigma in the workplace; and a staff-led innovation hub had been developed.  Areas for improvement included increasing the number of young people employed and encouraging employees to self-report disabilities, as the percentage was below the national average.

The Head of Workforce Development gave a presentation on the information contained in Appendix 4 of the report.  She used new technology to deliver the presentation on software called Prezi to highlight investment in new technology. During  the presentation, Members were informed that the ‘un-mentoring’ programme, once established, would provide opportunities for staff across different areas of the Council to get together in an informal setting, helping to break down barriers and encourage collaborative working.

A Member urged officers to liaise with Members regarding embedding a new Member/Officer Development Programme.

A Member commented that the report was informative about the processes being used but lacked statistical information about where we were last year, where we are now and where we want to be at the end of the programme.  He considered it difficult to make an assessment about whether investment in the programme was paying off due to baseline information not being included in the report.  In response, the Director of Human Resources stated that the baseline information had previously been reported to this Committee and the Executive, when the Workforce Development Plan was approved in June 2015.

A question and answer session ensued as follows:

·        The level of staff appraisals were extremely low and feedback from appraisees were key to the appraisal process but why was it not cited in the report as an area to address?

o   21% of completed performance appraisals were recorded however more were expected to have been undertaken but not recorded.  The Evolve system would help to record this better.

·        A large amount of work had been carried out on the recruitment and retention of good quality teachers in the District; were any lessons learned being used to attract staff to the local authority?

o   Discussions were due to take place shortly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The Strategic Director, Children’s Services submitted Document “I” which reported on the Bradford’s Families First (Phase 2) project and its aim to identify and deliver interventions to 5,990 families by March 2020 against locally agreed payment by results targets.

The Deputy Director of Children’s Services provided a summary of the report and acknowledged the challenges of delivering Phase 2 of the project given the increased number of families the Council were being asked to work with.  The authority would receive an upfront payment of £1,000 per family following commitment to the programme and £800 per family based on successful intervention.  Each family would have one lead practitioner with a co-ordinating role.  So far 1114 families had been identified, which equated to approximately 81 per month.  The target figure was 100-105 families per month and therefore the authority were 20% behind the trajectory figure but he was confident that the numbers would be achieved once early help teams were established.

Members were also informed of the Multi-agency Early Help pathfinders being piloted to test out the best ways to offer support and plans to children and families below the threshold for children’s social work.  They were currently operating in the Keighley and Better Start (BD3/4/5) areas and were due to be rolled out across the rest of the district by November 2016.

In response to Members’ questions raised during the discussion, it was reported that:

·        The target figure of 5,990 had been set by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and was based on population size and deprivation indicators.  They had also set the Phase 2 criteria.

·        Families chose to go on the programme; it was not mandatory but only a small percentage refused.  A written response would be provided to Members on the percentage of families identified but refused engagement in the programme.

·        It was suggested that nine of the wards in the table contained in paragraph 3.28 of the report did not contain a percentage breakdown per heading due to the numbers being so small and the risk of families being identified.  Members would be sent a written response to clarify this after the meeting.

·        Phase 1 had focused on worklessness and families on the programme had had an older profile as it related to children in secondary schools.  The criteria for Phase 2 had been expanded to include all children who need help.

·        The authority could not claim funding for a family until a child had attended over three full terms which was considered to relate partly to ensuring they did not relapse.

·        There were checks in place with internal audit to ensure claims were being made appropriately and to hold the authority to account.

·        In most cases the parents of families concerned had lost parental boundaries and work was done with them to help them regain control of their household and establish those boundaries.

·        It was recognised that most of the families concerned were female led with the absence of a male role model.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Chair of the Committee submitted Document “J” which presented the Committee’s Work Programme for 2016/17.

The Scrutiny Lead officer stated that, with regard to the Scrutiny’s Flooding Review, there was one remaining scrutiny hearing scheduled in August 2016, following which the findings would be discussed by the Committee.

He also reminded Members that an additional Committee meeting had been scheduled for 7 September 2016, as outlined in the Work Programme.

No resolution was passed on this item.