Agenda item

The Chair of the Committee thanked officers for providing members with the detailed report and invited officers to address the key points. This was delivered primarily by the Independent Chair of the Islington Safeguarding Children Board (ISCB), and the points addressed were:

·       The safeguarding arrangements are led by three statutory partners and the role of the Independent Chair was to oversee that and the work done as a partnership. There is currently an excellent partnership with Islington in seeking out its most vulnerable children and providing them with the best services.

·       The leadership of the service itself is led by the three statutory leads. This includes looking at what the challenges are for the future such as transitions, children who are being exploited, providing services to vulnerable groups at the earliest opportunity.

·       Serious violence, knife and gun crime remain a concern. The Youth Violence Strategy is testament to cross-partnership working with agencies.

·       There was good engagement with schools, and this was something that was particularly done well in Islington. The board works with their subgroup to address the effectiveness of safeguarding in schools and the actions taken from it.

The Director of Safeguarding & Family Support, Laura Eden, noted the importance of trauma informed practice and how the Council engages with children and young people and families, highlighting that it wasn’t a matter of children and young people not engaging with the Council, but more the Council services not engaging enough with them. The rate of transition from early help to social care intervention has been approximately 1 in 10 families, for the past five years. Members were told that the duties of the London Safeguarding Procedures have been extended, but there was also the ability to offer six sessions, and that some young people who don’t participate in the return interview would have engaged with other services.

The Chair referenced pages 10 and 11 of the report concerning the joint area for SEND inspection, which happened at the back end of 2021, highlighting that given eighteen months had passed since the inspection, it would be useful to have an update. In response, officers told the Committee that this was embedded in detail within the SEND strategy. Members were told that exclusions were down – including children with SEND – and the Council was working closely with our health partners to look at other ways of dealing with preventative services. These challenges were being experienced nationally, members were told, but things were improving but slowly

The Director of Children’s Services added that inclusive practice will always be focused on in Islington. There were challenges around the backlog of therapy assessments, and within school they were holding a lot of that need. Together with parents, schools and partners, Inclusive schools aim to build additional resource provision.

Members were also told that children and young people are accessing services earlier, benefitting from intervention before mental health issues escalate.

When asked by the Chair of the Committee what gaps they foresaw, the Independent Chair of the Safeguarding board told the Committee that they were worried about neglect; statistics showed that 29% of children were now living in poverty which was significant, as was the link between neglect and abuse; other potential gaps included the rise of domestic abuse, access to mental health services and transitions which members were told were all issues that the partnership was aware of. Members were told the partnership worked well as a multi-agency operation and actively sought to use learning of past tragedies across the country in the work going forward, such as greater information sharing and feedback; and that the aim was to be as ambitious as they could in supporting children and young people

 In response to members of the Committee who voiced concerns that there is distrust among some members of the local community regarding social services leading to the potential of some children falling through the net; and the follow-up question of how reflective the workforce is of the community – particularly for whom English is a second or other language – members were told that the workforce wa `s reflective of the population. However, in terms of social services, it was different because of the disproportionality in need, which leads to disparity. In early help services, there was disproportionality for most global minority groups.

It was expressed by members of the Committee that in some communities, social pressures such as shame and embarrassment prevented some families from coming forward and seeking help from Council services, highlighting that there was a long waiting list for call backs on SEN assessments which didn’t help matters. In response, members were told that there was a long waiting list for autism diagnoses, however, cited that once a young person was accepted onto a diagnostic pathway it can take up to eighteen months to complete, and that it wasn’t that nothing was happening in the intervening period, but that it may take that time to reach a conclusion. It was then noted that this was a universal experience, compounded by staff shortages.

In response to questions from the Deputy Chair of the Committee concern Community regarding the creation of an internal programme to help children with mental health, similar to CBT, which other boroughs have done; members were told that it was absolutely right to look at alternative forms of interventions. Members were told that statistics showed significant waiting lists for CAMHS. Members were also told that there are programmes commercially and locally developed, but this would be a matter for colleagues in health services and that a joined-up approach to development and pathways was needed. It was also added by the Chair of the Committee that the Director of Young Islington had informed her of counselling referrals for children over 12 as a stopgap.

ACTION

At the request of the Committee, members are to be provided with additional data concerning the number of children who are identified as Asian and are at Risk of Child Sexual Exploitation.

In response to questions from the Committee, about whether there was anything central government could be doing more of, the Director of Children’s Services told members that in Islington, 38.2%, of children were living in poverty. The cost-of-living crisis had been alluded to in the report and some of recommendations from the care review addressed the matter. It was fortunate that the Council made significant investments in children’s services and officers valued this and the representations made by members on behalf of the service for additional funding. The Director of Safeguarding & Family Support added that it would be a matter of concern if there were not a high number of children in deprivation on a care plan. Members were told that the government has made a commitment for childcare, but it was not yet known what it entailed or if it would genuinely cover cost. Islington’s rate for out-of-borough SEND placement was 1.6% compared to an average of 6%. Some authorities experiencing a deficit were being asked to take children off Education, Health & Care Plans, so it was testament to Islington’s management of funds that it was not in that position.