Minutes:
The Board received a report providing a new draft dataset for the LSCB. For ease of reference, the dataset had been organised according to the LSCB’s priorities and would be used by the Board to ascertain any areas of concern that might need further investigation. Consequently it was stressed that the dataset would focus on high level data rather than the more detailed information that would be incorporated into individual services’ annual reports. Arising from the subsequent discussion the following points were noted:
· Some way of reporting impact needed to be incorporated into the dataset. It was agreed that this would be added into the commentary/narrative in each section
· Data relating to the whole children’s workforce e.g. vacancy and sickness rates would be added
· Data relating to the use of Appropriate Adults including how often their presence was requested and how long it took for an Appropriate Adult to arrive once the request had been made would be added
· Children’s Centres and the Family Outreach Workers might be able to provide additional data in relation to neglect (Action: Cherry Hall/Alison Burnell)
· The practicality of collecting data relating to the identification of neglect during anti-natal screening was questioned as this was not something that midwives would routinely look for
· There were different definitions for Missing and Absent Children and this distinction needed to be made clear in the dataset. Additional potential data relating to these two groups would be identified (Action: Lorna Hunt/Sonia Johnstone)
· Information relating to the number of referrals made to DASC and DASH would be incorporated
· Consideration would be given to what indicators might be used to track parental mental health indicators (Action: Nancy Barber/Alison Burnell)
· It was agreed that data relating to the number of children missing from education due to mental health issues would be included in the data set
· It was suggested that data relating to the number of children who required tier 2 CAHMS services but who were unable to access it would be a useful indicator however it was questioned how this information would be collected
· It was agreed that information relating to which agencies were submitting CAF referrals would be added to the data set
· It was noted that data relating to child poverty indicators was out of date and that the information was not updated frequently. Its relevance and usefulness was questioned
· Data relating to the number of Section 47 investigations would be added
· It was agreed that data relating to the following groups would be incorporated into the Vulnerable Groups section:
§ Children who were home educated
§ Those young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs)
§ Children with disabilities
§ Youth Offending (including offending by Looked after children and the number of overnight detentions in police custody)
It was acknowledged that those considered to be vulnerable to Child Sexual Exploitation at 17 years old were still vulnerable to exploitation when they reached 18 years old. However many did not meet the eligibility criteria for adult social care services and were as a consequence left unsupported. It was noted that this group also included looked after children and young parents. It was agreed that this was a considerable safeguarding risk and would be added to the LSCB’s emerging risk register. (Action: Jonathan Picken)
Following recent feedback arising from inspections of other areas, it was questioned whether the low number of cases being considered under the MARAC process was an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground in Bracknell Forest and whether the thresholds for consideration by MARAC were too high. It was stressed that the MARAC process had been deliberately designed to ensure that appropriate levels of attention were given to those perpetrators that were considered to pose the greatest risk. The Board was also informed that the MARAC process in Bracknell Forest considered the cases of perpetrators who had been classified as lower risks as well as the most high risk offenders. Notwithstanding this, it was acknowledged that consideration needed to be given to ensuring that all appropriate cases were referred to MARAC and it was agreed that this was something that the Domestic Abuse Executive Group should explore and assure the LSCB that this was supported by the current self assessment. (Action: Jonathan Picken to raise with the Domestic Abuse Executive Group)
It was agreed that the dataset would be updated to reflect the discussions and the Board thanked Alison Burnell for her work. The dataset would be presented to the LSCB Bi-monthly