Agenda item

The Committee had been circulated the report on the 2017/18 Vulnerable Adolescents scrutiny review prior to the meeting, providing an update on the current position; the Committee had previously heard an update in 2019.

In response to questions from the Committee about whether there had been closer with housing partners, the Director of Safeguarding and Family Support informed members that the Housing department had been active partners at the table for at least the last few years. Housing officers are present at child protection, call groups and contribute fully to the management safety plan for families. Their input could include, but not limited to, facilitating a move either within and out of borough, securing pre-existing accommodation such as fixing broken gates, windows, or conducting any general alterations to the premises. Staff who had contact with vulnerable adolescents had also been given training

Members were also told that historically when safeguarding vulnerable adolescents, it was sometimes considered in certain instances that relocation out of borough was sufficient enough, but national data has shown this to not be the case. It was important to also consider how to keep families safe if they elect to remain in the borough as well.

In response to concern from the Committee that the eligibility bar for adult social services was so high that there was a risk that these children got lost in the cracks, members were told that when a child has been in care, a legal duty of care was given to them until the age of 25. Members were also told that support continued to be offered to young people transitioning from care that needed it, for a longer time. There was also provision of support from commissioned providers such as WIPERs and St Giles Trust, as well as transitional projects funded through MOPAC however more funding was trying to be secured.

Members were told that it was understood that safer schools were essential, and recently a meeting had taken place to address the safety of children leaving school premises at the end of the day, in light of a recent spate of incidents, and to launch the Safer Schools Protocol. There had some recruitment issues within the borough’s command unit, so there were slight gaps in the support they could provide. Additional resource had been put in place through commissioned organisations and non-uniformed police officers also. There are six school safety officers, and each school had a point of contact. 

ACTION:

Officers to circulate the Safer Schools Protocol to members of the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee about training on trauma-informed practice and whether we’re all schools across the board were buying into that programme and not just local authority-maintained schools, members were told that over 50% of schools were fully trained in iTIPs (Islington Trauma Informed Practices) which required a two-year commitment. A high standard was required to complete that programme and regular supervision meetings with the authority take place. Two academies were potentially joining the programme going forward.

Members cited the use of parent chaperones in the London Borough of Enfield that support children and young people leaving school at the end of the day and questioned whether data was being shared on the effectiveness of the Safer Schools Protocol, members were informed that part of the purpose of the protocol was to share information across partners, and each school had a copy.