Agenda item

The Children & Young People Sub-Committee is asked to: -

1.         Note the Croydon Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2021-2022

2.         Consider whether there are any considerations or concerns it may wish to submit to the Cabinet during its consideration of the Annual Report.

3.         In particular, give consideration as to whether the Annual Report provides sufficient reassurance on the performance and effectiveness of the Croydon Safeguarding Children Board.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 13 to 40 of the

agenda, which provided the Croydon Safeguarding Children Partnership Annual Report for 2021-22. The Corporate Director Children, Young People & Education introduced the item and the Independent Scrutineer, Eleanor Brazil, to the Sub-Committee. It was noted that the Independent Scrutineer would be leaving the role soon and had served Croydon in many roles over a number of years; officers and Members thanked her for her hard work.

The Independent Scrutineer explained their role in the Partnership as an external person to the key organisations delivering services to children and young people in the borough; the Independent Scrutineer’s role was to support and challenge key members of the Partnership organisations to help ensure safeguarding arrangements were effective. It was highlighted that safeguarding children was challenging as it was not always possible to ensure all children were safe from harm, although this was always the aim. Safeguarding Practice Reviews were undertaken by the Partnership when children died or were seriously hurt and thankfully these cases were not high in number.

The Independent Scrutineer went through the key points of the report and explained that the Partnership tried to capture the voice of children and young people in the borough. The work of the Partnership was guided by the Executive Group made up of key members from the statutory bodies – the Council, Croydon CCG and the Police. There were a number of multi-agency groups set up by the Partnership, with specific areas of focus, which reported to the Executive Group.

The Partnership had identified a number of themes throughout the year, and these were: the importance of Fathers/Male Carers; Professional Curiosity; Information Sharing; Safeguarding Supervision; Extra-Familial Harm. These themes had been used to influence the training offer for the following year. The Sub-Committee heard that an independent review of the Partnership had been commissioned to identify any areas of learning to inform the work and priorities of the Partnership in the coming year. The following had already been identified: Safeguarding Asylum Seekers; Early Help Transformation; Partnership Communication Strategy; Domestic Abuse; Sexual Abuse (inter and extra familial abuse).

The Chair noted the absence of a police representative and expressed the disappointment of the Sub-Committee. The Independent Scrutineer and Corporate DirectorChildren, Young People & Education explained the commitment of the Police to the work of the Partnership and suggested the necessary change of dates may have led to their non-attendance. The Sub-Committee queried the disparity of proactivity and funding from some partners and the Corporate Director Children, Young People & Education responded that there had been huge pressures for all partners and there had been significant work over the last 12 years to improve frontline availability and engagement on children’s’ safeguarding from the Police. The Police were also responsible for chairing the Priority Vulnerable Adolescents Group and Members heard that the independent review would help to gauge the effectiveness of the Partnership; feedback so far had suggested that engagement and the willingness to act on learning was in place. On the discrepancy between the Police budget contribution and the local authorities’ contribution, the Sub-Committee heard that this was historic and London-wide.

The Independent Scrutineer explained that an Extra-Familial Abuse Safeguarding Practice Review was underway, in the wake of a number of stabbings, and was looking at the circumstances of both victims and perpetrators to see what interventions had taken place and how effective these had been. The Review was being jointly chaired by Children’s Social Services and the Police; the Police generally had good attendance at other Partnership groups.

Members asked how recommendations were implemented and tracked across the partners. The CSCP Quality Assurance & Development Officer explained that this responsibility sat within the Safeguarding Practice Review Group, which tracked key partners involvement and regularly looked at key themes across the reviews that came in. Key people involved in reviews often attended the Safeguarding Practice Review Group to monitor how actions were being implemented and how effective they had been. Whilst sometimes reports could take time to publish, learning from these was implemented and shared between the partners to ensure this was not delayed.

The Sub-Committee asked about the current situation in Croydon with Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and any work the Partnership was carrying out in this area. The Corporate Director Children, Young People & Education responded that this was a clear priority for this Partnership and the Community Safety Partnership who collaborated and shared information on this issue; often the children at risk were often also at risk for involvement with county lines and serious youth violence which meant that a multi-agency response was vital. The learning from Serious Practice Reviews and training fed into this area but there was significantly more work that needed to be done through a multi-agency approach on the ground. The Chief Nurse Croydon CCG/CHS added that there needed to be increased awareness from frontline staff and a better understanding of the risks and challenges involved with better information sharing between partners. The CSCP Quality Assurance & Development Officer explained that there was a good training offer provided to staff on child criminal and sexual exploitation; specific training had been commissioned on the disproportionality to young black men and their families to extra familial risk. The Partnership had been instrumental in developing the Violence Against Woman and Girls (VAWG) strategy and ensuring that this did not sit alone and contained strong referencing to CSE.

The Head of Social Work with Families & Children with Disabilities 0-17 Services explained the Complex Adolescent Panel, which was multi-agency, and looked at children at risk of exploitation; a risk assessment was developed between partners using the expert knowledge of practitioners and an action plan was agreed and followed. Children would remain on the Panel’s list until the members were certain that the risks were managed, and some safety was achieved for the young person. Mapping was also undertaken to identify links between cases the Panel was considering. The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People commented that the complex issues faced by the Council since 2017 could lead to challenges in this sensitive area of work but that there were a team of social workers who conducted intensive work with children at risk of CSE in collaboration with the Police and the Youth Offending Team. Members heard that a close eye was being kept on this area and it was a priority for the Cabinet Member.The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People explained their key concerns were around missing and looked after children.

On the level of CSE in Croydon, the Sub-Committee heard that Croydon had a similar profile to other London boroughs; the Corporate Director Children, Young People & Education highlighted the importance of early intervention for young people and that any figures that they could provide would likely be misleading. The Sub-Committee asked how well the Partnership worked with other organisations and how often these relationships were reviewed. The Corporate DirectorChildren, Young People & Education explained that there was very joined up working with other partners and partnerships but that there was always more work that could be done to supplement frequent on the ground communication. The independent review of the Partnership would specifically look at the links with other organisations and partnerships.

Members asked how much face-to-face working continued during COVID and the Corporate DirectorChildren, Young People & Education explained that this was crucial. Throughout the pandemic, face-to-face contact had continued, and this had been supplemented by other means where necessary. The Head of Social Work with Families & Children with Disabilities 0-17 Services explained that there had been a point in lockdown when children had been prioritised due to need and those of highest priority had continued to receive full face-to-face contact with reduced levels for lower risk children in safer placements; some meetings of professionals had taken place virtually where practical.

The Sub-Committee asked about the challenges of Safeguarding Education Standards and the Director of Education responded that schools shared safeguarding audits which were reviewed to identify best practice and gaps. Where gaps were identified, or audits were not completed, schools were helped to find how to close these gaps and, where significant safeguarding concerns were identified, visits would take place and an action plan would be developed. Audits would be shared with and signed off by Governors to ensure safeguarding was a key focus for school leaderships. Serious concerns were not often identified in education provision, but should they be, they would be discussed within the Partnership and with OFSTED where necessary. Members asked how the challenge differed for the Police and Health Safeguarding Standards and the Chief Nurse Croydon CCG/CHS explained that the auditing and reviewing was similar. The Independent Scrutineer explained that reports on auditing came to the Quality Improvement Group who provided further challenge.

Members asked about the Child Death Overview Panel, and it was explained that the report on this had not yet concluded. A report with the full details on this would be published at a later date, but the number of cases reviewed by the Panel had been falling over the last four years.

In response to questions about the effectiveness of training, the Independent Scrutineer explained that this could be hard to gauge but that learning was identified continually by the Partnership. Events were organised where all frontline practitioners from cases were invited to discuss and share their learning which was then shared with other practitioners. Members heard that the confidence of staff was often a good measurement of how effective training had been.

The Sub-Committee asked how the experience of children and young people was used to inform the practices of the Partnership. The Head of Social Work with Families & Children with Disabilities 0-17 Services explained that this information was captured through direct work with children, multi-agency meetings, family surveys, complaints and direct interactions with frontline workers and managers. Often feedback was good, and it was recognised that positive outcomes could sometimes not be as visible. There were a number of avenues used to collate this information, but it was recognised that more work needed to be done in this area and this was a part of all improvement plans across the Partnership. There would be a Practice Week in early October 2022 which would involve practitioners spending time talking to young people, children and carers to hear what they would like to see improved. Carers often attended social service meetings to discuss what was being done well and what could be done differently to allow social workers to reflect on their work.

Members asked how long after cases were closed that post case reviews were undertaken and whether there was any long term follow up to see how well interventions had worked. The Director Quality, Commissioning & Performance responded that the refresh of the Quality Assurance Framework looked to pick this up and to see how well things had worked for children and families and to review the longitudinal impact of interventions.

The Sub-Committee asked how effective information sharing was and how well early intervention approaches were embedded. The Corporate Director Children, Young People & Education explained that a lot of work had been done to improve information sharing in the Partnership both on the ground and at a strategic level. Work was done to review systems to ensure this was robust through training and identifying areas of additional learning. Members heard that Early Intervention services were not statutory and were often identified as areas for savings, however, these were vital to managing pressures in a time of increased demand. Early Help and Early Years services were working closely together, and this would feed into the development of Family Hubs.

The Director of Education explained that Croydon had received funding to develop the Family Hub model which would be implemented alongside an Early Years Strategy to make sure early help was available at a ‘one stop shop’ for families, carers and children. Family Hub development was still in the early stages and would be with input from the views of stakeholders and families.  Schools are often the first port of call for the Early Help Service due to their relationships with families and children and this needed to be incorporated into the Family Hub model alongside Children’s Centres. Members asked if the Council could bid for funding on Family Hubs or whether this needed to come from external organisations and partners. The Director for Education explained that the funding was received by the Council who would work closely with partners to deliver services.

The Chair thanked officers and the Independent Scrutineer for all of their work with the Partnership and in delivering the Annual Report.

Conclusions:

The Sub-Committee were disappointed that the Police were not able to attend and hoped that they would be able to attend in future.

The Sub-Committee commended the commitment of the Partnership and the Council to Early Intervention services.

The Sub-Committee were keen to see the conclusions of the Independent Review of the partnership included as part of the Annual Report for 2022-23.