Agenda item

Alan Caton, Independent Chair of the Islington Safeguarding Children Board (ISCB), presented the report which summarised the Board’s safeguarding work in 2014/15.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The ISCB had a statutory duty to coordinate the safeguarding work of local agencies and to ensure that local agencies were effective in their safeguarding work.

·         It was advised that 2014/15 was a challenging year in which local agencies had to consider how to best safeguard children in light of increasing financial pressures. Despite this, it was reported that the timeliness of statutory assessments had improved, which was a priority for the year. 

·         The ISCB was pleased that independent assessments of Early Help services indicated that they were effective in helping to reduce demand for statutory services.

·         The ISCB welcomed two new lay members in 2014/15 and they had made a positive contribution to the work of the Board. It was also noted that a number of agencies had increased their involvement and were chairing ISCB sub-groups.

·         The Independent Chair outlined the priorities of the Board in improving the collective effectiveness of agencies. These were: (i) addressing the impact of neglect on children, including by helping them to become more resilient; (2) addressing the consequences / harm suffered as a result of domestic violence, parental mental health and substance abuse; and (iii) identification of children who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and holding perpetrators to account.

·         The Committee noted the safeguarding work undertaken with local schools, including the Chelsea’s Choice production.

·         It was noted that the ISCB had approached other strategic partnerships to ask what steps they would take to contribute to the priorities of the Board.

·         The Committee was advised of several ISCB-led audits, including an audit of FGM which found weaknesses in information sharing. As a result a number of cases were reviewed and a follow-up audit found that improvements had been made. 

·         The ISCB had a responsibility to review child deaths. There were 18 such deaths in 2014/15, an increase on the average of 14 deaths per year. The reasons for these deaths ranged from young children having serious medical conditions, to older teenage victims of knife crime. The ISCB was concerned about gang violence in Islington.

·         The Committee considered the future priorities of the Board. The ISCB was working to encourage universal services to engage with Early Help services and to support all agencies in taking ownership of safeguarding matters. The Board had a particular interest in private fostering arrangements and was working with health agencies and schools to identify children in such arrangements. The ISCB also wished to gain a greater understanding of serious youth violence; and would be working with children to shape local services.

·         The Committee noted the work of ISCB to target child sexual exploitation. In particular, the Board was working with partners to achieve greater use of intelligence to better target offenders. 

·         The ISCB was concerned about the relatively small numbers of offenders being prosecuted for neglect offences.

·         It was commented that the report was abstruse in places and it was not clear what audience the report was written for. It was explained that the report was written in accordance with statutory guidance and the executive summary was intended to be a more accessible summary. It was advised that the reports of other safeguarding boards were similar and the national association of safeguarding boards was reviewing the format of such reports. It was also noted that the government was reviewing the role of safeguarding boards and reporting arrangements could be altered as a result.

·         The Committee queried the ISCB’s relationship with the CPS, as it was noted in the report that better partnership arrangements were required. It was advised that the CPS was not a statutory member of the Board, however the ISCB had asked for the CPS to attend local and London-wide meetings and to date there had been no engagement. It was explained that this was particularly important given an apparent contradiction between certain Police and CPS statistics. The Committee expressed concern at the lack of CPS engagement and noted that the Leader of the Council was raising this matter through the Local Government Association.

·         Following a query on publication timescales, it was advised that the report covered the period 1 April to 31 March. Data for the end of the year became available in early summer and the annual report was required to be published by September.

·         It was advised that encouraging preventative actions and early intervention was a priority of the ISCB. The Board considered work with schools and young people to be crucial. 

·         Following a question on how the Board was addressing mental health, radicalisation and FGM, it was clarified that the ISCB was a strategic board and did not work on an operational level, however the Board was working to ensure that partner agencies had effective policies and procedures to deal with all aspects of safeguarding. Cathy Blair, Director of Targeted and Specialist Children’s Services, advised that schools and children’s centres occasionally raised concerns about FGM with the local authority and in such instances officers approached families about the issue.

·         It was advised that, of the 18 child deaths in 2014/15, two were as a result of knife crime. Three deaths had ‘modifiable factors’ and were therefore considered preventable. The Board was not aware of the numbers of young people apprehended by the Police for carrying knives, however could investigate such statistics in future. It was confirmed that children apprehended for such crimes were referred to social services.

·         It was commented that some of the ISCB’s priorities seemed nebulous and members queried how the Board was specifically working to tackle neglect. In response it was advised that the Board was challenging partners on their identification and prevention procedures. For neglect this included assessing if agencies gave sufficient consideration to neglect when making interventions on related factors, such as domestic abuse and substance abuse.

·         The Committee queried why multi-agency safeguarding training was not consistently delivered in all settings. In response, it was advised that a great deal of single-agency training had been delivered, however there were difficulties in arranging multi-agency training. Multi-agency training was preferential as it promoted joint-working and gave staff an opportunity to consider safeguarding from a different perspective. For example, it was noted that front line police officers did not regularly interact with health workers and those working in children’s services. The ISCB would continue to evaluate the effectiveness of training and emphasise its importance.

·         It was queried if the 41% increase in high risk abuse cases being referred to MARAC was positive or negative. In response, it was advised that abuse was generally under-reported so an increase in referrals was considered positive.

·         Following a query, it was advised that Moorfields NHS Trust featured significantly in the report as they had substantial engagement with the ISCB.

·         The Committee noted the impact of the neglect toolkit, which had helped with the identification and awareness of neglect issues in universal services.

·         In response to a query about where unaccompanied asylum seeking children presented themselves to the council, it was advised that some approached the council through a solicitor, whereas others were identified through council services or local community groups.

·         The Committee queried the reasons for the increase in homeless young people. In response, it was advised that some families with disruptive or offending 16 and 17 year olds were making their children homeless, and since the Southwark Judgement in 2009, children’s services were required to provide accommodation and care services to these young people. It was clarified that previously the authority would have provided housing, but these young people would not be considered ‘looked after children’ and therefore would not be entitled to access to certain services and benefits.

·         It was noted that emotional abuse and neglect had a higher prevalence than child sexual exploitation, however sexual exploitation was more prominently featured as a concern in the media. It was queried how this shaped the priorities of the Board. In response, it was advised that different types of abuse were identified through different channels and the Board had to maintain a focus on all areas. For example, neglect and emotional abuse was often associated with domestic violence and substance abuse and instances could be identified by agencies working with families on those issues, however sexual exploitation tended to be identified by social workers developing child protection plans.

·         Following a query, it was advised that the increase in the number of child protection plans had brought Islington in line with its statistical neighbours.

·         A discussion was had on how complaints against staff working with children were processed. It was advised that there was initial concern about health partners not making referrals for consideration by the LADO, however it was found that a parallel process was in place and agencies were found to be compliant.

·         Following a question by a member of the public, it was queried why the report did not focus on radicalisation and extremism. In response, it was noted that this had been a priority more recently and guidance was being prepared for parents and carers.

·         Following a question by a member of the public, it was advised that the ISCB included BME members. The report did not include BME data as, although partners recorded demographic information, due to the few numbers of referrals the data was not statistically significant.

·         A member of the public queried how deaf children and those with other communication difficulties were effectively safeguarded, how these children could communicate their concerns to agencies, and if local services with safeguarding responsibilities had sufficient access to BSL interpreters. In response it was advised that the council did have a service for children with disabilities. It was requested that further information be circulated to the Committee.

The Committee thanked Alan Caton for his attendance.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Islington Safeguarding Board Annual Report and recommendations of the Board be noted;

2)    That concerns about the engagement of the CPS in local safeguarding activity be noted; and

3)    That further information on the safeguarding of children with disabilities be circulated to the Committee.