Agenda item

The Independent Chairman of the Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership (WSCP) had been invited to the meeting to present the Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board’s (WSCB) Annual Report 2018-19.  The Director of Social Care and Safeguarding also attended.

In the course of the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       Concern was expressed about potential overlap between the WSCB and the Children and Young People sub-group of the Health and Well-being Board (HWB).  In response, the Independent Chairman informed the Panel that he was happy if there were small areas of overlap between the two boards, but would be more concerned if there were gaps in coverage.  He confirmed that he met the Chairman of the HWB twice a year.  The Director went on to confirm that she was a member of both bodies, as were the Director of Children, Families and Communities and the Director of Education and Early Help.  Although there were clear links between the two boards, the new WSCP had a clear focus on safeguarding and child protection, whereas this was not the main focus of the HWB.

·       A question was asked about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) implications of bringing together the three named Safeguarding Partners (Chief Executive of Worcestershire County Council, Chief Constable of West Mercia Police and Accountable Officer for the Clinical Commissioning Groups).  The Panel was informed that the Partnership would have an information sharing protocol and this was not something that had caused a problem previously.  It was confirmed that health services would be included in the information sharing protocol.

·       In relation to the WSCP’s GETSAFE agenda, Members were reminded that, although the original focus of this work had been on Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), it was now recognised that the focus should be broadened to include other forms of exploitation.  The Independent Chairman told Members that the GETSAFE agenda was one of the most innovative and ambitious projects in the country and this should be applauded.  The Director suggested that the increasing numbers being identified under the GETSAFE agenda should not cause concern as it was an indication that children at risk were being identified.

·       The Chairman of the Panel suggested that Members may wish to look at the website yss.org.uk to find out more about the charity’s work to support young people facing significant life challenges.

·       With reference to the rise in the number of Child Death Notifications, concern was expressed about whether parenting classes were reaching the right people and what else was being done to address this.  The Director reminded Members that there was a link to the Health and Well-being Partnership.  It was important that front line professionals who were in touch with families (for example health visitors and social workers) were aware of rising concerns in specific areas, such as excessive alcohol consumption coupled with bed sharing and smoking.  It would also be important to look at the regional and national picture to assess whether the picture in Worcestershire was reflective of the national situation.

·       The Independent Chairman reminded Members that the Annual Report related to the period to March 2019 and suggested that things had moved on since then.  In relation to the assessment of the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements in Worcestershire, he reminded the Panel of the significant improvement since the Ofsted Inspection in November 2016.

·       He informed the Panel that he had regular meetings with the Chairmen of other Safeguarding Boards to identify mutual areas of concern.  He welcomed the suggestion from central government that a national database on child deaths would be developed.  This would allow the identification of national patterns and allow coordinated campaigns.

·       In response to a question on whether any issues were caused by the fact that midwives, health visitors and social workers worked for three different organisations, Members were informed that joined-up working was overwhelmingly good.

·       The Neglect Toolkit to improve practice and consistency had now been launched and further work would be done in this area going forward.

·       A CSE Problem Profile had now been developed by West Mercia Police and this would need ongoing data input to give a fully three-dimensional view.  The Independent Chairman welcomed the work by West Mercia Police on this.

·       It was suggested that the GETSAFE model could be borrowed by safeguarding partnerships elsewhere in the country as a model of good practice.

·       With reference to Early Help, the introduction of the revised pathway was making positive improvements.  However, there remained an issue with partners not fully understanding thresholds, although the situation was getting better.  The Director suggested that this may be an issue of accepting rather than understanding.  In response to a question about whether small schools in particular had an issue of capacity, it was confirmed that this was not related to school size but to school management and attitude to risk.  The Independent Chairman confirmed that this was also an issue elsewhere in the country.

·       A question was asked about the voice of the child and how this was represented in the work of the Board.  The aim was to understand how children were experiencing services.  The approach was that all children would be given the opportunity to give their view rather than simply including one or two representatives on the Board.  Members were referred to the multi-agency quality assurance programme which would include key performance indicators (KPIs), audit activity and the voice of the service user.  The service would also aim to tap into other consultation activity being undertaken through health, the CCGs, public health and schools.

·       It was confirmed that all sub-groups of the WSCP would report back to the Executive Group and the WSCP Board would meet twice a year.

·       The Independent Chairman informed the Panel that the WSCB had stepped back from the critical friend model of working.  Further clarification was requested as this appeared to be a backward step.  In response, Members were told that the Board had moved to a more structured way of working, something which was felt to be a better model, providing greater challenge to all partners.  The ethos of the Board acting as a critical friend remained.  The Director confirmed that she was very happy to engage in critical challenge conversations.  It was important to have equitable challenge of all partners not just the Local Authority.  The Independent Chairman suggested that the new arrangements represented a bold way forward.  There had previously been lots of scrutiny of the local authority but there was now a need to establish a more outward looking partnership.

·       In relation to Serious Case Reviews (SCRs), it was critical to embed learning through a comprehensive audit regime.

·       Although education was not one of the three named Safeguarding Partners in the WSCP, schools remained a key part of safeguarding arrangements.  The Safeguarding Adviser - Education was a member of the Partnership’s sub groups and also part of the safeguarding network.

• The role of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) in the new partnership was questioned, as it was noted that PRUs were not represented on the WSCB.  The Director of Education and Early Help was due to send a letter to all schools about the new arrangements for the Safeguarding Children Partnership and she agreed to include PRUs in this.

·       The Independent Chairman referred to the different model of education representation.  He informed Members that the Partnership received challenging questions from education representatives and he had noticed a shift in dynamics as understanding and acceptance of the arrangements had grown.

·       Members were referred to the Summary Statement of Overall Effectiveness in the WSCB report.  The Board had seen continuing improvements, although there was still much to be done and was more assured about safeguarding arrangements than in previous years.

·       The Chairman reminded Members that Elective Home Education was an area that the Panel had expressed concern about and was included on the Panel’s work programme.  It was suggested that current legislation prevented agencies from being involved in parents’ decisions to home educate.  The Independent Chairman suggested that the Department for Education had recently shown more interest in home education and there was concern that decisions were being influenced by outside pressures.  As well as concerns about the academic attainment of pupils who were home educated, there were further concerns about the social needs of the child.

·       Concern was expressed about increasing referrals to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).  Members were informed that there were similar concerns across the country.

• A question was asked about a lack of data from West Mercia Police in relation to the number of children charged and detained by the police.  The Director of Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding agreed to look at the KPI to identify any trends.

·       In relation to Operation Encompass, a Member referred to a recent conversation with a local headteacher who had expressed concern that, although schools were informed when an incident of domestic violence had taken place, they were not given any further information.  The Director of Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding suggested that schools should be given access to the incident form which would provide a brief outline of the incident.  She agreed to check the level of information given to schools when an incident was reported, although she cautioned that there was a need to be realistic about what front line officers were able to record when faced with difficult situations.  The Director of Education and Early Help agreed to follow up on the particular concerns about Operation Encompass outside of the meeting.

·       In response to a question about how partners other than the Council were held to account by the WSCP and previously the Board, it was confirmed that, although the mechanism was there for any of the Safeguarding Partners to be called before the Board, this had not happened to date as the focus had been on Children’s Social Care.  Members were reminded that in future there would be much more of a multi-agency approach.

In conclusion, the Panel was reminded that this would the final report of the Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board as, going forward, Partnership arrangements were in place.