CELCIS PARTNERSHIP GROUP
2 FEBRUARY 2012, RAMADA JARVIS HOTEL, GLASGOW
MINUTE OF MEETING
Partnership GroupRomy Langeland / Chair, CELCIS
Duncan Dunlop / Chief Executive, Who Cares? Scotland
Terry Mclean / Head of Social Work, Associate Head, Robert Gordon University (RGU)
John Rafferty / Head of Faculty for Education, Care and Sport, Langside College
Ilona Richards / Scottish Throughcare & Aftercare Forum (STAF)
Sara Lurie / Director, The Fostering Network (TFN)
Barbara Hudson / Director, British Association of Adoption & Fostering (BAAF)
Phil Barton / Educating through Care Scotland (EtCS) & Director, Starley Hall School
Angela Morgan / Coalition of Care & Support Providers in Scotland (CCPS) & Director, Includem
Beth Smith / Director, Multi Agency Resource Centre (MARS)
Anne Neilson / Nurse Consultant, NHS Lothian
Dorothy Hawthorn / ADSW Representative (Head of Child Care and Criminal Justice, Renfrewshire Council)
In attendance:
Jennifer Davidson / Director, CELCIS
Steven Paterson / Depute Director, CELCIS
Louise Anusas / Stakeholder Participation Lead, CELCIS
Kirsty Anderson / Admin Support, Strategic Policy Implementation Hub, CELCIS
CELCIS – SETTING THE CONTEXT
1.The Chair thanked members of the CELCIS Partnership Group (PG) for attending this inaugural meeting which was our first opportunity to look at the foundation blocksthat have been established for CELCIS in terms of its progression from SIRCC. Members of the Strategic Steering Group (SSG) would be joining the meeting for the afternoon session. The intent was for the PG to provide intelligence, influence and advice on the CELCIS Corporate Plan as the organisation moves forward. The meeting today would establish and agree the governance and processes around that.
2.The Chair provided some background to SIRCC/CELCIS. She explained that Angus Skinner had originated the idea of a College of Residential Care and from that The Centre for Residential Child Care was born. The Centre then won a tender in 2000 for a new centre, SIRCC, which incorporated Langside College, Robert Gordon University, Save the Children (Scotland), Who Cares? and the University of Strathclyde. Over time there were increasing requests for policy responses andRomy (as chair of SIRCC)then led on the National Residential Child Care Initiative (NRCCI) which reported three years ago. Further to that, Scottish Ministers agreed to a request to make recommendations beyond the residential child care sector and the Looked After Children Strategic Implementation Group (LACSIG) was born in 2010 incorporating health, education, care planning, workforce and strategic commissioning matters in relation to looked after children.With very little increase in budget, CELCIS had moved from responsibility for improving outcomes and experiences for around 6000 children and young people to 16,000 children and young people in care – incorporating the looked after at home sector. CELCIS was then launched in September 2011 with this wider remit and responsibility for delivery of LACSIG outcomes with Scottish Government (SG).
3.Jennifer Davidson (JD) outlined the thinking in terms of the CELCIS governance and Corporate Plan and the papers provided in this regard. The CELCIS governance model differed from that of SIRCC and recognised that we have to work in partnership with the wider sector, including Scottish Government, to move forward. The ‘red’ page in the Corporate Plan outlined the activities of the new organisation witha split into four Hubs, although CELCIS was still in the process of applying different activities to the priority areas; it was hoped that a discussionon indicators of success could be tabled at the next PG meeting.
ACTION 1: CELCIS Business plan and indicators of success to be discussed at next PG meeting
4.In response to a question about the role and purpose of LACSIG, now that the new centre was established, JD responded that unlike LACSIG, CELCIS was independent from Government,albeit LACSIG was part of the CELCIS Corporate Plan and activity may become much more dovetailed over time. LACSIG was moving into the last year of a three year programme and the recent SIRCC/CELCIS organisational review and restructure incorporated a ‘policy implementation’ hub in recognition of there being a plethora of policy for looked after children but still much work to be done in terms of implementation; this was where the PG and SSG support would be crucial.
ROLE OF THE PARTNERSHIP GROUP
5.Steven Paterson (SP) introduced the draft PG and SSG Agreements which had been circulated to members and asked for feedback/concerns. The following comments were made:
- It was thought the Partnership Agreement document was helpful and clear and members especially welcomed the clarity on the time commitment required.
- A concern was raisedover the section which allowed members to miss three meetings before being asked to stand down as it seemed this would mean a long absence and a missed opportunity for others. SP responded by saying that the intention would certainly be to have a discussion after one to two absences to see if any problems could be resolved/a different representative could be found.
- Some group members commented that they could not commit, unfortunately, to a three year period given the uncertainty around organisations’ Unified Voluntary Sector Funding (UVSF).
- The group agreed to the proposal that the Chair meet with members individually once a year for a private discussion.
- SP referred to section seven of the PG agreement around media engagement stating that joint media statements with CELCIS would be welcomed, albeit members should avoid speaking on behalf of CELCIS without consultation. The PG recognised the potential strength of all the partners speaking with one voice. Each organisation can and should refer to their links with CELCIS and these could be made explicit on websites etc (PG and SSG members’ organisations to go on CELCIS web). Use of each other’s logos/branding would be on a case by case basis and it was felt that branding should be referred to in this section.
ACTION 2: Biographies of members and the organisations/networks they represent to be sent to KA for upload to CELCIS website.
- SP drew the group’s attention to the section around the role of the Vice-Chair – who would stand in for the Chair in her absence and provide the crucial link to the SSG. It was felt that this role should be agreed by consensus and that anyone wishing to accept this responsibility should contact the Chair in first instance. The time commitment required would be effectively doubled as the Vice Chair would also attend the SSG.
ACTION 3: PG members interested in the role of Vice Chair to contact RL in the first instance.
- It was felt helpful to reflect that some members represent organisations directly whereas others represent networks which would have to be consulted on key decisions - this additional time should be afforded in plans. It was agreed minutes of meetings should be predominantly non-attributable and that a short summary of discussions/matters agreed would be made available soon after meetings for member to circulate to their networks (pending the full minute being agreed).
ACTION 4: LA to provide members with a short summary of discussions/matters agreed, following each meeting, to circulate to their networks.
- Group members were particularly interested in how the PG and SSG would incorporate the views of young people into its work and Louise Anusas (LA) responded that the afternoon’s joint SSG- PG activity had been arranged to give this matter some thought.
6.SP thanked PG members for their input to the Partnership Agreement, agreeing to amend the document to incorporate comments.
ACTION 5: SP to amend Partnership Agreement(especially on communications and conflicts of interest) before circulating a new version to the group for final sign-off.
PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH THE STRATEGIC STEERING GROUP
7.LA outlined that the SSG had considered the challenges and opportunities to moving forward and it would be useful for the PG to now have this discussion. LA asked the PG to consider their views independently before coming together for a group discussion prior to reporting back to the SSG in the afternoon session (notes of the stakeholder engagement activity attached separately).
8.Further to the activity on challenges and opportunities, an overriding concern of the PG was the need to set realistic expectations in terms of short, medium and longer term objectives as members would need to know they were impacting on improvement of care experiences and outcomes in order to justify their time commitment. The Chair agreed that we need to prioritise those areas of leverage and that work being undertaken by SP on logic models would help. Each member of the group should ask themselves what they would want for their own children and whether the demonstrable outcomes we deliver are good enough.
ACTION 6: SP to amend Corporate Plan to incorporate comments before circulating new versions to the group for final sign-off.
SUMMARY OF ACTION POINTS:
ACTION 1 / CELCIS Business plan and indicators of success to be discussed at next PG meeting / SPACTION 2 / Biographies of members and the organisations/networks they represent to be sent to KA (for upload to CELCIS website). / PG Members
ACTION 3 / PG members interested in the role of Vice Chair to contact RL in the first instance. / PG Members/RL
ACTION 4 / LA to provide members with a short summary of discussions/matters agreed, following each PG meeting, to circulate to their networks. / LA
ACTION 5 / SP to amend Partnership Agreement (especially on communications and conflicts of interest) before circulating a new version to the group for final sign-off. / SP
ACTION 6 / SP to amend Corporate Plan to incorporate comments before circulating new versions to the group for final sign-off. / SP
CELCIS
February 2012
1 Improving care outcomes and experiences