Agenda item

Cathy Blair, Director of Targeted and Specialist Children’s Services, answered questions on the report which provided an update on the council’s safeguarding work. 

·         It was queried why some young people missing from care had not achieved good outcomes. In response it was advised that some of these young people had a history of offending and had entered the care system as older teenagers on remand in custody. It was noted that such young people were particularly difficult to stabilise.

·         Further to paragraph 4.7, the Committee queried the use of abduction notices. It was explained that such notices were served on adults who had exploitative and unhealthy relationships with missing children. Officers considered abduction notices to be a useful tool in disrupting inappropriate relationships.  

·         It was queried why officers believed the number of children missing from home was under-reported. It was suggested that parents did not always notify police when their child was missing, especially if this was a regular occurrence.

·         The Committee queried if the key performance indicators detailed at 5.3 were sufficiently oriented towards outcomes for children. It was advised that Children’s Services was also the subject of regular quality assurance audits which objectively measured performance and outcomes for children.

·         It was queried if the 45 days allowed for children in need assessments to be carried out was excessively long. Officers commented that 45 days was a reasonable standard, and whilst some assessments took a shorter time, some family circumstances were complicated and took much longer to assess.

·         The Committee noted that the council applied for court orders to protect children more often than most other boroughs and queried why this may be. It was explained that the high levels of deprivation in Islington, together with significant levels of domestic violence and substance abuse, meant that Islington had a relatively high number of children requiring protection and such orders were considered to be the best way to safeguard children. It was commented that the court almost always agreed with the authority’s judgement that the child was at risk of significant harm and required protection.

·         The Committee noted that the number of Looked After children who had to move more than three times during a year was comparable to the council’s statistical neighbours and queried if this was positive or not. In response it was advised that there was a shortage in foster carers, and although moving was disruptive for children it was often required to achieve the best outcomes.

·         The Committee noted that the council had started using secure accommodation orders to protect children from absconding for the first time in six years and queried the reasons for this. In response it was noted that such orders were often used to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation who required their liberty to be deprived to ensure their safety. It was emphasised that this was only used as a last resort and the council had to demonstrate to the court that the order was required and that no suitable alternatives were available. Officers commented that children’s homes would be an appropriate alternative in some cases; however there were very few residential resources available and homes could be reluctant to accept children which presented a significant risk.

·         The Committee queried the significance of not recording changes in child circumstances in chronologies as detailed in paragraph 6.7 of the report. It was explained that chronologies were very useful in monitoring outcomes for children and these should be updated by social workers as required.

·         A discussion was had on the anxieties of social workers as described at paragraph 7.1. It was queried why social workers raised anxiety with regard to managing risk and workloads. In response it was advised that social work was high risk by nature and although social workers had a significant work load this was comparable to other London boroughs.

·         The Committee noted the results of a recent audit, which found that the rationale for why decisions were made was only recorded in around two-thirds of cases. Officers agreed that further work was required to make improvements in this area.

·         The Committee was encouraged by the work of the Pause programme, although questioned if the project would become self-funding as intended due to the complexities of working with women with multiple issues. It was advised that permanent solutions for babies taken into care were usually found quickly.

·         It was requested that a further report on the Pause programme and ‘Doing What Counts and Measuring What Matters’ be reported to the Committee in June 2016.

·         The Committee noted that the number of safeguarding contacts had remained stable over the past three years (11,688 in 2013; 11,730 in 2014; 11,766 in 2015) and commented that an increase may have been expected given the increasing number of high-profile child exploitation cases nationally. Officers advised that referrals had become more appropriate in recent years. Around a quarter of referrals were received from the Police, and around a quarter were related to domestic violence.

·         A discussion was had on how the Committee could best scrutinise the council’s child safeguarding activity in future. It was concluded that ensuring the safety of children was central to all work carried out by the Committee and progress reports would continue to be received annually. In addition, members would continue to regularly review safeguarding matters through the work of the Corporate Parenting Board and the CSE Working Group.

·         A member of the public queried if the Government’s Prevent Strategy and the council’s Youth Crime Strategy had an impact on the council’s safeguarding work. Officers commented that both strategies had significant implications for how the council protected vulnerable children and Children’s Services had an important role to play in reducing offending and reducing the risk of children being drawn to terrorism. It was noted that the council had carried out assessments under the Prevent duty.

The Committee thanked Cathy Blair for her attendance.

RESOLVED:

That a further report on the Pause programme and ‘Doing What Counts and Measuring What Matters’ be reported to the Committee in June 2016.