Agenda item

The Committee moved to consideration of the second item, the Child Protection annual report. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

• The Committee were told that the motivational practice model was highlighted in the report, as it was believed it was effective in reducing child in need rates and re referral rates; and that actions addressing disproportionality / disparity were beginning to have an effect.
• In response to questions from the Committee concerning whether those that needed help were receiving it, officers advised that there more families were going to early help than the contact team. On average between 10 and 20% of contacts to the contact team will lead to social care intervention.
• Officers advised that in circumstances where a child was not seen alone or in their assessment, a manager was consulted who would take the decision about whether it was appropriate to override parental agreement for officers to attend the necessary settings to assess the child’s lived experience; or would take the decision that this action was not proportionate at this time and consult someone in the network, advising that as access had not been granted to this child, additional monitoring of them was required.
• Officers were working with partner agencies to address disproportionality and disparity. The Islington Safeguarding Children Partnership now have a task and finish group to address this issue specifically.
• The Committee were also informed of the cross-London ‘Black Adoption Project’, which sought to address why it takes longer for a mixed/dual ethnicity child to move in with their adopted family.
• In response to the Committee’s observation that parenting capacity had overtaken domestic violence as the main reason for contacts, officers stated this was unusual and possibly had stemmed from the impact of the pandemic on parental capacity. While there were contact reason codes encompassing parental mental health, substance abuse, officers would not label that as the referral reason without getting to know the family first.
• The Committee were told that officers were now undertaking quarterly audits of children that were on repeat child protection plans.
• In response to questions from members about where absent children were, officers advised that there were new expectations on attendance and every school had an action plan, was RAG rated and had an identified lead within the local authority to challenge and review practice. Officers had also worked to identify of schools that had patterns and groups where absences were below 50%. Altogether, officers were able to identify where absent children were on an individual basis in most instances.
• Officers confirmed that it was the case as per paragraph 6.5 of the report, that as the sibling group grows larger there was more likelihood of them being able to be placed together, albeit in out-of-borough placements. 
• Members of the Committee highlighted the Council’s family support services for praise, citing that the communities that were engaging with it, had been very complimentary of its’ people-focused approach. Officers attributed this to the practice model / relationship-based practice and will feedback to Bright Start and Bright Futures.
• The Committee expressed its thanks to officers for their work in protecting the borough’s children and young people and highlighted that the report demonstrated extraordinary levels of practice.

ACTION:

Officers to circulate presentation from Child Protection training.