Agenda item

Laura Eden, Director of Safeguarding, presented the Islington Safeguarding Children’s Partnership Annual Report on behalf of Alan Caton, Independent Scrutineer of the Partnership.

In the presentation and discussion the following main points were made:

·       The report set out the work and activities of the Safeguarding Partnership and sub-groups in 2020/2021.

·       Legislation required the report to be completed annually and to be presented to several boards and committees in Islington, one of which was the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee.

·       A member asked if it was known why Islington had a higher rate of Children in Need and Children Looked After than statistical neighbours. The officer advised that there were high levels of children in Need in Islington but the numbers had decreased in recent years. The figures were masked by some children with disabilities who are receiving family support rather than an allocated social worker and were classed as Children in Need. There were also good early intervention services. In relation to Children Looked After, Islington had the second highest rate per 10,000 children. Work was taking place to ascertain the reasons for this. When reviewed by Ofsted, the service was advised that the right children were being brought in to care. Islington had a higher proportion of Unaccompanied and Separated Children (UASC) than other boroughs.

·       In response to questions about the Child Q case review, the officer advised that when police went into schools where a child was suspected to be a victim of child abuse or neglect, they would go in jointly with a social worker that had been agreed by a local authority manager. The phrase ‘appropriate adult’ was used for when children were arrested and required an appropriate adult to be present when they were interviewed. This could be a parent or an appropriate adult from a commissioned organisation. The Chair stated that Ofsted were asked to undertake an inspection after the Child Q case and were critical of the teachers saying they should have challenged the police and asked whether teachers were aware they should challenge the police where necessary and whether they felt empowered to do this. The officer advised that it was hoped teachers would intervene but in reality an unspoken hierarchy could prevent challenge. Safeguarding Partnerships only had to complete a review when a child died or was significantly injured but the Hackney Children Safeguarding Partnership had chosen to undertake a review to learn from the case and share the learning with other boroughs. The case review on Child Q would be brought to the relevant Islington Safeguarding Partnership sub-groups to analyse lessons to be learnt and help collect and understand data e.g. stop and search and strip searches. Police had given assurances about there being no strip searches within Islington schools and the police were on board with learning lessons. There was a training and development issue around the hierarchy of agencies. The Child Q case report would be circulated to members.

·       A member asked how feedback from children and parents about child protection conferences could be improved. The officer stated that in relation to parents’ feedback a survey had taken place and parents were asked to give feedback at the end of a child protection conference. Approximately 14 parents provided feedback each year. It was noted that this was always a low number but it was a parent’s choice whether they wished to do this.

·       Whilst professionals often preferred online child protection conferences, parents had stated they preferred them to take place face-to-face. Therefore once restrictions were eased, parents had face-to-face child protection conferences with some professionals present in person and others online.  Child protection conferences were now moving back to hybrid/face-to-face as that was in the best interests of families. In relation to children and participation there were differing views on whether children should be present at child protection conferences. Sometimes adult issues which impacted on the children were discussed and it might not be appropriate for a child to hear these. Parental permission was required to have children of a certain age present. It was important that a child was able to express their view and give a description of their lived experience to their social worker or potentially the child protection co-ordinator outside of the conference.

·       A member asked about elective home education and if cross-referencing took place when the local authority was notified a child would be home educated e.g. to see if the family were known to social services or if there were any indicators that the local authority should intervene. The officer advised that cross-referencing took place and present or past concerns about child protection, safeguarding, domestic violence, mental health etc. that had lead to a referral into social care would be identified. Assessments took place of the risks of the child being home educated however, the local authority could not legally prevent parents from home educating their children. An officer stated that one of the proposals of the Government white paper was to strengthen local authority powers in relation to children who were not in education.

·       A member asked if there was any way to ascertain why three young people had gone missing from care for longer than one month. The officer stated that sometimes young people who were UASC went missing near their 18^th birthday if they had not received a decision from the Home Office about their status. This was worrying and showed that even though work was done with young people to explain they were likely to get status and leave to remain, they were concerned that they would be returned to their home country. In these cases, the local authority alerted all national ports and photographs were sent to other boroughs. These young people would always be treated by the police as missing people and their cases would not be closed. Often long missing episodes were related to criminal exploitation.

·       A member asked about ongoing monitoring of peer-on-peer sexual violence, abuse and harassment and measures in place to ensure schools were following the protocol. An officer stated that many schools had been involved in producing the protocol. Schools were required to submit an annual safeguarding audit. If there was a lack of referrals from a school, this would be challenged.

·       It was important to have a transparent and inclusive culture and to help young people feel safe enough to voice concerns and understand when something was not appropriate.

·       There had been a successful bid for funding from the Violence Reduction Unit who wanted to do some work focused work around inclusion and peer-on-peer reviews. This would take place over three years and would involve work with 10 or 12 schools and experiences would be rolled out to other schools.

·       A member referred to the lack of child sexual exploitation referrals from those of Asian Bangladeshi heritage and asked what could be done to improve this. The officer stated this would be tracked over a number of years and consideration would be given as to how to work with community groups and give advice on services available.

RESOLVED:

1) That the report be noted.

2) That the Child Q report be circulated to members.