Minutes

The minutes of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) Executive meeting held on 28 November 2014 were approved as a correct record.

Matters Arising

• Work to discuss representation of the independent fostering and residential services on the LSCB was ongoing
• There was currently no mandate to collect LADO data on a regional basis and this was impacting on efforts to develop a regional data set.  It was suggested that the matter be discussed by the LSCB Regional Chairs’ Group.
• It was agreed that all partner agencies would provide the LSCB Business manager with a summary of the single agency audit work taking place within their organisations by 6 February 2015.  This was to include any nil returns and would be considered by the next meeting of the Learning and Improvement Sub-group.  (Action: All)
• The lack of report from the Pan Berkshire Section 11 Sub-group would be raised at the next Thames Valley Regional Chairs’ meeting
• It was clarified that the Youth Council had adopted emotional health and well-being and mental health as its focus for the coming year
• The March CAHMS report to the Health and Wellbeing Board would be circulated to the LSCB. (Action: Katharine Simpson)
• The LSCB’s concerns in relation to the lack of informative information in the Sexual Abuse Referral Centre reports would be discussed at the next Thames Valley LSCB Chairs’ meeting

Safeguarding Training

A meeting would take place on 12 February to review the pan Berkshire arrangements for safeguarding training and develop an appropriate way forward.  The Board would be kept informed of the outcomes of the discussions but there was concern that the current arrangements were not effectively enabling the LSCB to fulfil its function.  (Action: Alex Walters)

The Board noted the information relating to safeguarding training provided by Thames Valley Police and Children’s Social Care.  It was stressed that the Board needed to be assured that it had a properly trained workforce and that training was a key area that would be focused on during an Ofsted inspection.

It was agreed that Board members outside the local authority would provide details of the single agency safeguarding training provided by their organisations to Leah Thompson via Katharine Simpson by Friday 6th February. The Training Needs Analysis would be re-circulated and attention should be paid in particular to the following questions:

• How many people have been trained
• What gaps are there in the training provided?
• What additional multi-agency training was required?

The information provided would be used to support the Training Needs Analysis for 2015/16.  (Action: Debbie Hartrick/Nancy Barber/Dave Gilbert/Jonhn Ennis/Helen Morris/Clare Dorning/Amanda Braund)

It was agreed that this item would be deferred to the Board’s next meeting as the report had not been provided.  The Berkshire East Clinical Commissioning Group’s report on the LSCBP Sub-group on Female Genital Mutilation would be circulated with the minutes and would be a future agenda item. (Action: Debbie Hartrick)

The Board received a report providing an update on the work of the Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) Strategic Sub-group.  The comprehensive report included: overviews of the work of both the strategic group and the operations group, a summary of the multi-agency work taking place to profile CSE within the Borough, a summary of the risks and challenges faced by the Sub-group, details of the work that agencies were currently undertaking in order to address CSE.  A summary of the audit work undertaken by the CSE Strategic Sub-group was also provided.

The Sub-group had reviewed its work against the Ofsted thematic inspection of CSE and identified three areas of improvement.  It was confirmed that the profiling work did not identify any new children or young people.  Workshops would be held, one for young people and one for frontline practitioners, to raise awareness and inform the scoping of future activity.

Resourcing was a key challenge for the Group which had no specific dedicated resource to support it. Nevertheless, it was reported that the Sub-group’s work was well supported although attendance at meetings had fallen recently.  The next CSE Strategy meeting would take place on 12 March and people were asked to prioritise their attendance at the meeting.

The Board received and noted a document setting out the scope of a proposed audit of CSE and Missing Children processes.

A briefing session on CSE had been held for councillors on 26 January and it had bene requested that this be repeated after the elections in May so that new members were fully aware of local concerns and activities.

It was reported that a briefing session for GPs would be taking place on 22 March 2015, when it was expected that approximately 120 GPs would attend.

The Board thanked Karen Roberts for her comprehensive update.

Sonia Johnson, Head of Specialist Services, presented a report detailing the current arrangements for children who go missing.  The report included an analysis of the return interviews that Children’s Social Care carried out with a child once they had returned.

It was reported that 55 children had been reported missing in Bracknell Forest during the period April to November 2014 and that there had been 110 missing episodes recorded, with several children being reported missing on a number of occasions. The majority of children reported missing were known to Children’s Social Care with the largest group of missing children being those falling into the Children in Need category. 

Analysis showed that the average age of children being reported as missing had fallen over the past twelve months to a new low of 13 years old.  This was considered particularly concerning because the majority of the work to educate young people was currently aimed at 14 and 15 year olds and this would need to be refocused to ensure that vulnerable young people continued to be targeted appropriately.

The number of different processes in place meant that it was not always possible to carry out a Return Home interview within the prescribed 72 hours.  In the small number of cases where a child had not been seen within 72 hours clear audit trails setting out the reasons for the delay were available.  With delays mainly caused by the length of time that it could take for information to be passed between agencies or to be processed out of hours and this situation was being looked at.  

It was noted that if a child went missing on multiple occasions then they were more likely to say more if their Return Home interviews were carried out by the same person each time.

It was noted that Return Home interviews with children who did not meet the thresholds for Tier 3 interventions were usually carried out by Youth Services.  Whilst this arrangement worked well none of the interviews had to date resulted in either a referral to Children’s Social Care or the completion of a CAF and work would be done to ascertain whether this was appropriate and to assure Children’s Social Care that potential issues were not being overlooked.

It was questioned whether there might be any links with the Troubled Families programme.

It was acknowledged that the re-launch of the Safer Places Scheme would provide young people with support however the scheme was mainly aimed at known vulnerable groups and it was questioned what work was taking place to raise awareness generally amongst children and young people about the potential risks that might arise during the regeneration of Bracknell town centre.  It was agreed that the matter would be followed up directly with the Education Department, the Secondary Heads Forum and Schools’ Designated Safeguarding Leads. (Action: Janette Karklins/Amanda Wilton)

It was recognised that the Multi-agency Strategy ‘Prevention: Children Running Away/Going Missing from Home and Care should be reviewed to ensure the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Board received the MARAC Annual report.  MARAC, a monthly multi-agency meeting where information about high risk domestic abuse victims was shared between local agencies, sat beneath the Domestic Abuse Executive which acted as the steering group.  The Domestic Abuse Executive feeds into the Community Safety Partnership.

It was noted that there were currently no concerns about the level of multi-agency participation in MARAC meetings or information sharing processes.  The Action Plan developed in response to CAADA recommendations was progressing. However the IT system used to track cases, MODUS, was not always accessible to non-police agencies and this was considered a key risk.  On occasions when this situation did arise then contact was made with Berkshire Women’s Aid who would add the information to MODUS. It was requested that this concern be followed up with operators. (Action: Jon Goosey/Penny McKenzie)

The Board noted the report.

The Board received a report providing an update on the work of the Bracknell Forest Domestic Abuse Executive Group.

It was reported that work was taking place with Berkshire Women’s Aid to map examples of best practice across the area.  The Children’s Social Care Duty Team was working with Berkshire Women’s Aid to look at any domestic abuse reports received so that information was shared appropriately and effectively triaged.

The Troubled Families programme listed domestic abuse as a priority area and work would be taking place to ensure there was no duplication of work.

It was reported that the multi-agency intensive DASC work was having a positive impact on perpetrators and would continue.  The Cambridge University study was nearing completion and the report would be circulated when it had been published.

A recently published CAADA report on young people and interpersonal violence would be circulated to the Board for information.  (Action: Jonathan Picken)

The Board received a report providing an update on the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) multi-agency process for managing violent and sexual offenders in Bracknell Forest.  The report covered the period January 2014 to December 2014.   The Strategic Management Board Annual Report was also available and this would give a broader Thames Valley wide picture.

It was noted that there were currently 63 Category 1 offenders and 29 Category 2 offenders in Bracknell Forest.  There were currently no offenders being managed in the highest risk Category 3 group.  There was good agency engagement and attendance at MAPPA meetings and effective working arrangements.

It was reported that a key risk had arisen recently when an offender’s conviction had resulted in his registered social landlord classifying him as being a perpetrator of anti-social behaviour.  A move that placed him in breach of his tenancy agreement and placed him at risk of eviction. Work was taking place to manage the situation and prevent the eviction so that the offender could be managed appropriately.  It was agreed that the learning from this incident would be brought to the Learning and Improvement Sub-group.  (Action: John Ennis)

The Board considered a report providing an overview of the homelessness trends within Bracknell Forest.

It was reported that homelessness levels were rising across the Borough and that affordability was a problem across all tenures especially for those employed in low paid work.  It was stressed that where homelessness was a possibility agencies needed to encourage families to think realistically about all possible options rather than focusing just on being offered a council house.

The Board was informed that many older teenagers and people in their early twenties were unaware of the impact that a poor credit record would have on their chances of securing accommodation and more needed to be done to educate young teenagers about financial literacy, debt and the implications that debt might have for them in the future.

It was acknowledged that more needed to be done to understand where debt was an issue at an early stage of dealing with a family and to avoid duplication of work and it was suggested that this might be incorporated into early help arrangements, possibly through the CAF.  It was agreed that the matter would be followed up.  (Action: Sandra Davies/Karen Frost/Clare Dorning)

It was also suggested that homelessness be included in the Family Focus criteria. (Action: Karen Frost)

The Board thanked Clare for the report and agreed to continue monitoring the area routinely through the performance dataset.

The Board received the updated performance data for the period July to September 2014. 

It was acknowledged that whilst it would be useful to have data relating to CAHMS waiting times included in the data set waiting times alone would not give an accurate reflection of the situation because a child would be seen without being placed on a waiting list if the situation warranted it.  The Board agreed that providing this information in the narrative would be helpful.

The Board was informed that the National Crime Data classified a parent smacking a child as an assault and this could have implications when analysing data provided for the category victims of crime under 18 years old.

The Board noted the report.

Children safe in education: childcare disqualification requirements supplementary advice

The Board received a Department for Education briefing titled Keeping Children Safe in Education: childcare disqualification requirements supplementary advice.  It was reported that the original statutory guidance published in 2009 currently still stood however updated clearer guidance was expected by the end of February 2014 and until this was published the 2009 guidance should be followed.  The guidance would be disseminated directly by the Local Authority and through the LSCB.

Revisions to Working Together to safeguard Children

The Board received ‘Revisions to Working Together to Safeguard Children’ a Department for Education consultation document.  It was noted that a response to the consultation was being prepared on behalf of the national Association of LSCB Chairs.  Of particular concern was a proposal to move the LADO function, which currently operated independently of Children’s Social Care, into Children’s Social Care.  It would also be questioned why it was only a local authority who could notify Ofsted of serious incidents.  It was requested that any further comments be forward to the LSCB Business Manager by 2 February 2015.  The Chair would circulate the national response.  (Action: Alex Walters)

The Board was informed that formal letters had been sent to the Chief Executives (or their equivalents) of the contributing agencies setting out the current financial situation in relation to LSCB funding and the impact that not increasing funding levels will have on the LSCB’s effectiveness.

It was agreed that the letters would be copied to the appropriate LSCB representatives for information. (Action: Alex Walters)

• A facilitated development day would be held for the LSCB Executive in either April or May to explore the role and functions of the LSCB and to start reviewing progress and developing priorities for the coming year.  Details would be circulated in due course.
• Posters and Practitioner Guidance on the Continuum of Need had been produced and these were available on request.
• The Department for Education had publicised details of an Innovation Fund which LSCBs could apply to for project funding.  There were currently no criteria to limit the scope of any projects and bids for funding were to be submitted by 13 February 2014.  It was requested that people forward any project suggestions to the LSCB Business Manager for consideration.  It was suggested that the evidence base used to support a successful funding bid for support for the early intervention provision within local communities might be used to support a bid to the Innovation Fund

The Board received a report setting out the key learning arising from recent Ofsted inspections of LSCBs.  The report included summaries of inspection judgements, an overview of the key aspects of each of the inspection classification groupings and an overview of the key indicators that inspectors would potentially explore during an inspection.

The Board was asked to consider nine key indicators and rank the LSCB for how well it performed against these areas.  The Board was also asked to consider what might be done to improve the performance of the LSCB during the next three months.  Arising from the subsequent discussion the following key themes were noted:

• Training was a high risk area for the LSCB
• Resourcing the LSCB adequately both financially and in kind.  The Bracknell Forest area was a small one with many people covering more than one area of responsibility
• Was the voice of the child being captured adequately?
• More could be done to share the learning from other LSCBs for example best practice should be shared as well as learning from Serious Case Reviews
• Improving the consistency with which the learning from reviews and audits was rolled out through agencies

The outcomes of the discussions would be used to inform an action plan which would be discussed in more detail at the Board’s next meeting.