Agenda item

This item is an opportunity for the Sub-Committee to question the Chair of the Croydon Safeguarding Children Partnership, with a view to seeking reassurance that the partnership is working effectively together to protect children and young people in the borough.

(Report to follow)

The Scrutiny Children & Young People Sub-Committee considered the Croydon Safeguarding Children Partnership report – namely the Child Safeguarding Practice Review, which provided an overview of partnerships working effectively together to protect children and young people in the borough in particular identified lessons about working with vulnerable young and first-time mothers (and separated fathers) and the challenges of engagement in Universal and Early Help Services.

The Chair highlighted the sensitivity and seriousness of the case which was brought before the Sub-Committee and addressed that the focus of the report was the effectiveness of the partnership, and emphasised on three areas:

-                  The investigation: How can we do better; the things that happened and the actual event;

-                  The process of the way the safeguarding partnerships had evaluated what had happened and identified lessons learned; and

-                  What changed as a result – i.e., the multiagency action plan

Prior to the meeting the Sub-Committee received a summary of safeguarding practice review process (formally known as safeguarding case reviews) which highlighted the grounds the local authority was to take following a serious incident that included notifying the national panel.

The Head of Service for Children Looked After and Care Experienced, Shaun Hanks, highlighted that a rapid review, which was attended by all agencies together learnt immediate lessons, and as a result, more in-depth review was required which was the report presented to Sub-Committee.

Lessons learned had addressed the communication between the multi-agency partners particularly within the front door services which was now happening more frequently (on a monthly basis).

There was also an Independent Management Report that sought immediate practice of an agency and would feed into the bigger Safeguarding Practice Review.

The Detective Superintendent for Public Protection for the Metropolitan Police, Fiona Martin, addressed the Sub-Committee and highlighted their review on their system, the quantity of incoming referrals, how accidental and non-accidental injuries were undertaken, and information sharing.

Further reflection on the learning within the Police included working with the three boroughs (Croydon, Sutton and Lambeth) in understanding thresholds in strategy meetings and increasing the essential meetings to address strategies in safeguarding cases, working together with other agencies, and ensuring learning would be shared.

The Chief Nurse for Croydon CCG and Croydon Health Services, Elaine Clancy, addressed the Sub-Committee and highlighted that the health team had a governance plan which they used to educate, reinforce, increase awareness and other individual learning, in practice and in communication.

Following comments from Children’s Services, Police and Health, the Sub-Committee shared their concern and sadness to the details read within the report. A discussion of the report followed with queries raised by the Sub-Committee, and questions were answered as followed:

-                  In the question relating to the report highlighting that the father of the child was only heard during the review, what opportunities were agencies seeking in the engagement of parents, particularly fathers? The Head of Service for Children Looked After and Care Experienced shared that following the independent management review training sessions had been provided to staff to conduct better engagement with both parents during assessments. There was room for improvement in this area to also change language and to be more inquisitive around the relationships of a child’s parents.

-                  In the question around the key indicator of neglect that highlighted a failure to make appointments, how could this be detected in the future and acted upon? The Chief Nurse for Croydon CCG and Croydon Health Services addressed the importance to improve health colleagues’ professional curiosity as to why clients were cancelling appointments, though this was challenging as there were often cancellations or absent attendance from clients and as professionals the service needed to review protocol to address these issues to triangulate any risks or concern relating to an absent attendance.

-                  In the question around threshold, how had the criteria of eligibility changed in a family in such circumstances accessing resources; and, the service providers taking actions to work with the families. The Chief Nurse for Croydon CCG and Croydon Health Services addressed that at the time operational teams do not often know all the details, highlighting for better communication between partner agencies in how they identify risk to match the risk to a family. There were further points that had been identified for services to execute better communication for a clearer picture, which were part of the lessons learned. The Detective Superintendent for Public Protection for the Metropolitan Police added that there was evidence within the report of multi-agency working, information sharing, and help offered, though agencies needed to work on supporting non-engagement and how they could assist families to engage fruitfully.

-                  In the question around flawed decision making, how had this been addressed; also, the multi-agency working was often an issue in case reviews where it was often said there would be improvement in the future, thus concrete plans and stronger recommendations was required; further, were there any signs for support to the mother and what support was available to her? The Head of Service for Children Looked After and Care Experienced acknowledged the comments raised and highlighted that serious incident reviews were rare and found flawed decisions. The decision taken to not conduct a child protection assessment was based on the information provided at the time of a referral, and upon review, the Children’s Services recognised that they should not have had to rely on health services assessment of an action for their involvement to take place, adding that better communication should have been pursued by themselves; further, the conclusion of a no further action from Children’s Services should have been sent back to the referrer. Going forward these errors had been tightened, which had been part of the lessons learned. The Safeguarding Partnership had also been conducting a series of ongoing audits to ensure lessons learned were maintained.

At 7:35pm Councillor Alisa Flemming attended the meeting.

-                  In the question around the clarity of partnership communication, would information such as, a child had not been seen by a health visitor for two years, be shared between agencies? The Head of Service for Children Looked After and Care Experienced highlighted that agencies do become involved with families and end their involvement after a period. Working with partnered agencies historic information would be shared, though GP records were strictly confidential. There were known information sharing issues with what could and could not be shared, which often affected how information was gathered and concluded, and this issue was amongst lessons to be learned to be better.

-                  In a supplementary question, not attending medical checks was deemed as an indicator of neglect, does Croydon have a policy in place around children who did not attend their medical checks? The Chief Nurse for Croydon CCG and Croydon Health Services confirmed that there were policies in places for non-attendance of medical appointments where risk management would be addressed to assess the next steps. In addition to professional curiosity, staff also would need to be trained on identifying and understanding risks to ensure the policies in place were followed through.

In the question around the status of a child in need, and supervision model for social workers, the Head of Service for Children Looked After and Care Experienced informed that in relation to a child in need, there was no push for service involvement and a choice was also given to families, though, this choice was omitted if there were safeguarding risks. In relation to supervision, this was taken in two-fold on a monthly frequency, (1) to discuss children and young person in cases in addition to and (2) personal supervision to discuss personal coping and pressures, viewpoints for reflection, challenges and sharing risk.

In further discussion, the Chair highlighted that there needed to be more evidence of improved communication between partners and in addition the multi-agency plan needed to be visible. Also, that performance indicators was to be presented to further evidence the changes following the review of multi-agency partnership, as this would review at the way in which communications between safeguarding partners had improved, visits were better managed, and other risks mentioned.

The Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education, Debbie Jones, addressed the Sub-Committee and shared that upon review the work that had happened since the incident had been evidenced by the regulator and inspection which took place in 2021. Further, that the purpose of a multi-agency plan was to be regularly reviewed and tested though various assurance mechanisms internally and externally, and the evidence of changes to the process was the work undertaken by the safeguarding partnership and safeguarding partners, which included Ofsted.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, Alisa Flemming, addressed the Sub-Committee and indicated upon reflection that there had been a change of processes following the outcome of the serious review, particularly around the front door services in Children Services, in the way data was shared, and gaining consent for information to be shared was also received. The time it took to share information or follow up with a decision from a referral was also recognised as a factor for change, and that the performance indicators would better reflect the evidence of changes made.

In conclusion, the Sub-Committee noted that lessons had been learned, nevertheless, highlighted that they would like to see more:

-                  Evidence of improved communication happening between agency partnership.

-                  Better communication of how missed appointments was received, and evidence of risks improved.

-                  Evidence of improving fathers’ involvement and for fathers to understand their rights.

-                  Frequent reviewing of concerned cases, which would provide insight in department position, service provision and allocation of resources.

-                  The importance to explore further in the lessons learned and feedback at the future Sub-Committee meetings.

-                  That the recommendation in 5A of the report was adhered to.

The Chair thanked all the officers present for their contribution to this item.