Agenda item

 

·         Chair of the Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board and the Business Manager of the Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board, to report. 

The Independent Chair of the Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board (RLSCB) and the RLSCB Business Manager were welcomed to the meeting to present the annual report for the period 2013/2014. 

 

The Improving Lives Select Commission considered the annual report of the RLSCB each year.  The 2012/2013 annual report was considered at the meeting held on 18^th September, 2013 (Minute No. 22). 

 

Councillor J. Hamilton, Chair of the Improving Lives Select Commission,  raised how, as the report referred to the period 1^st April, 2013- 31^st March, 2014, it did not cover any of the more recent issues that the Council had experienced: the publication of the Jay Report and the Ofsted Inspection.  In these circumstances and context, the report had a limited use.  The Chair spoke about how the annual report could not be circulated until verified data had been received, which was usually the August following the end of the business year and due to the publication of the Jay report in August and then the Ofsted Inspection there was an understandable and unavoidable delay in submitting the report to the Improving Lives Select Commission. 

 

As the report did not cover the post-Jay Report and Ofsted inspection, which had brought new consequences and processes for Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, the Chair included a statement in the report to the effect that the content had been superseded. 

 

The annual report included the following key priorities for the Rotherham LSCB within its Business Plan and in the 2013-2014 annual report: -

 

·         Child Sexual Exploitation: -

o   Devastating effect on victims;

o   Significant increase in professional and community awareness;

o   Robust commitment and response required from all organisations, which had not always been the case;

o   The RLSCB had provided excellent training and awareness sessions for professionals;

o   The RLSCB had identified improvements that were required;

o   The Health and Wellbeing Board was assessing support requirements for victims and survivors of CSE. 

 

·         Child Neglect: -

o   Corrosive effect on wellbeing if not tackled from an early stage;

o   Neglect was the biggest category of those who were suffering significant harm in Rotherham;

o   Required a Child Protection Plan;

o   Multi-faceted issue requiring a multi-agency response;

o   A 2013 RLSCB review of cases of neglect – key messages were early identification, early utilisation of assessment tools and assertive interventions addressing the factors underpinning neglectful parenting;

o   The RLSCB were ensuring the review’s lessons were implemented by sharing with all stakeholders at high-level strategic meetings.

 

·         Domestic Abuse: -

o   Impacted on all aspects of wellbeing;

o   Correlation between Children on a Child Protection Plan and domestic abuse within the family, mental health and substance misuse;

o   In 2013, the lmproving Lives Select Commission completed their scrutiny review of domestic abuse, with recommendations on developing more integrated services with clear protocols and pathways, and be more integrated at a strategic level;

o   Development of the Multi-Agency Support Hub (MASH);

o   Changed definition of domestic abuse to include young people aged 16-18.

  

·         Early Help: -

o   The number of children in the Borough who were at risk of significant harm, had been taken into care or where there were concerns about them referred to more than one agency was high and rising;

o   Providing the right help at the right time for children and their families helped prevent problems from escalating;

o   The Local Authority had developed an Early Help Dashboard where caseload information from agencies was shared between Children’s Centres, Targeted Family Support, Integrated Youth Support Service and the Learning Support Service;

o   The Early Help Dashboard included the ability to benchmark against regional outcomes.

 

·         Voice of the Child: -

o   Listening to what children and young people said was key to understanding their needs, keeping them safe and providing effective services;

o   The RLSCB listened to the voice of children and young people via the results of the Lifestyle Survey, the Looked After Children’s Council, the Youth Cabinet and particularly their work on self-harm, advocacy support work for children on a Child Protection Plan.

 

The RLSCB had a budget financed by member agencies.  Key contributors included Children’s Social Care, Children’s Health Services and the Police. The outturn of the 2013/2014 budget was a balanced position. 

 

Opportunity was provided for members of the Improving Lives Select Commission and the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board to ask questions to the representatives about each section of the report: -

 

Councillor Burton asked about the significance of audits. - The Independent Chair referred to the Ofsted inspection report and the immediate need for an Improvement Plan.  The changes were relating to the degree of scrutiny that the Board was giving.  All agencies had agreed increases to the Board’s available funding to allow more audits and more targeted audits against specific areas.  In the past 6-8 weeks efforts had been concentrated on the ‘front door’ of Children’s Social Care where referrals were made.  In the past audits had not been sufficient in number, and when they did take place the reporting back process was verbal/informal.  The Police Service was referring too many domestic abuse cases that did not meet the criteria for Social Care intervention, which suggested that this agency had not received sufficient training.  Additional audits allowed the RLSCB to know what was happening and to measure what was improving.

 

Councillor Burton asked what the Independent Chair’s opinion was on the outcome of the inspections. – The Independent Chair spoke about how the inspection was not a planned one; the inspection team had been directed to inspect Rotherham at short notice by the Secretary of State, which was unusual and demonstrated the seriousness of the situation.  The Council, Children’s Services and the RLSCB had accepted the outcomes of the inspection in full.  The judgement that the RLSCB was inadequate was taken in the context that the Board could not be effective as it did not challenge Children’s Services for inadequate performance.  There were no grounds to appeal the outcomes or the overall decision for intervention.  However, it would only be fair to expect future Ofsted inspections to follow-up and reassess the grading within the medium term.

 

Councillor McNeely asked about the financial reporting of a balanced position.  She would have anticipated the budget to be over-spent given the complexity of cases and the context.  -  The Independent Chair outlined how the multi-agency budget was reached.  It was spent according to strict criteria on limited items.  The Independent Chair would expect to balance the budget each year and the only factor that would significantly impact on the budget was in relation to Serious Case Reviews.  Any Serious Case Reviews undertaken would bring significant additional commitments to the RLSCB and external funding would need to be sought in each instance.  Broadly, the budget covered staffing costs and learning and development matters.

 

Councillor Reynolds asked what were the consequences of being judged to be inadequate? -  The implementation of an Improvement Plan and monitoring the progress against it.

 

Councillor Vines asked whether the annual report could include information to show that it was now out-of-date/had been replaced.  -  The Independent Chair confirmed that this was displayed on the website but he could include a disclaimer on hardcopies to show the subsequent position.

 

Councillor McNeely asked about the figures relating to neglect.  Did it include parental neglect only, or other adults and agencies in a child’s life, as these people/organisations could also neglect a child’s needs. For example, a school not providing a dedicated teacher for a pupil with autism. -  The Independent Chair confirmed that it related to parental/carer neglect only when a child or young person had a Child Protection Plan, where criteria in the ‘Working Together’ Statutory Guidance had been met.  This criteria was precise and Child Protection Plan status was the highest level within social care for highly vulnerable children and young people.

 

Councillor J. Hamilton asked about the statistics relating to the child protection category data on ‘multiple categories’ as it seemed high.  – The Business Manager explained how a combination of abuse could be present, for example, physical and emotional abuse together, where multiple categories of abuse were met. 

 

Councillor McNeely asked about the red rated indicators on page 18 of the annual report.  -  The Independent Chair spoke about the time limits relating to initial and core assessments.  It had been a continuing area of failure for the Local Authority in the period of the annual report, 2013/2014.  Any delay at these stages meant that a child or young person was potentially left with their needs and/or risks delayed and un-met.  This performance was highlighted by Ofsted.  Going forward, the two figures had now combined and Social Workers were required to undertake an assessment of a child following a report of concern within 45 days.  The assessment deadline did not alter the fact that some children needed to be seen immediately and were seen immediately.  The Independent Chair knew that improvements were being prioritised by Children and Young People’s Services Directorate’s new management, including timeliness and quality of assessments.

 

Councillor Reynolds felt that the locally agreed 35 days or national target 45 days was far too long.  The Police would be called and attend immediately if someone was being assaulted in the street.  -  The Independent Chair outlined that where there was an immediate concern about a child’s safety a police officer and a social worker would attend immediately.  The target related to overall assessment. 

 

Councillor Reynolds asked for confirmation that a child would receive immediate help if it was being assaulted. -  The Independent Chair explained that all referrals would be assessed within 24-hours following referral.  Emergency action was taken, and it was the longer term plan, which was assessed over the longer timeframe with a target of completion by 45 days. It was right that some assessments took an extended period of time as this work was often complex.

 

Councillor Burton asked about the impact on staff relating to timescales, staff vacancies, protected time and the availability and quality of supervision.  Was it possible that demands and expectations on social workers were unattainable?  The Jay Report spoke about the safeguarding of younger children following the Baby P report, had this caused other areas of safeguarding to be sidelined? -  The Independent Chair confirmed that the RLSCB looked at training and workload of social workers.  Rotherham, when benchmarked against other local authorities, had used less agency staff.  Using agency staff was not an ideal situation in terms of quality or consistency.  Rotherham had filled its posts well, but with a higher proportion of less experienced/ newly qualified staff.  Nationally there was a problem with social worker numbers.  This was not something that the national Political parties would prioritise in the same way they would with nurses, for example.  The new management team was prioritising this.  The social worker role was difficult and demanding, report writing was challenging but was a requirement of the role.  The Independent Chair was satisfied that caseloads and workloads in Rotherham were being reviewed to ascertain whether they were within national guidelines. 

 

Councillor Vines asked about the nature of the industry – it was impossible to plan how many referrals would be received.  Therefore, it was management’s role to respond to referral numbers and ensure that staff were appropriately deployed. -  The Independent Chair confirmed that was the case; management needed to place resources in the right place at the right time to ensure children were safe.

 

Councillor Roddison referred to the role of admin support in freeing up social workers to concentrate on the front line.  Was this work fully realised?   When social workers had to concentrate on paperwork, they were less contactable and less available to the people who needed them.  Delays could represent trauma to children.  -  The Independent Chair felt that this question should be made to the Interim Strategic Director for Children and Young People’s Services. 

 

Councillor J. Hamilton asked about what was being done to prevent suicides.  -  The Independent Chair referred to work initiated by the Director for Public Health on behalf of the Health and Wellbeing Board. 

 

Councillor J. Hamilton referred to the percentage of GPs who were aware of Child Sexual Exploitation.  This had increased significantly over the year 2013/2014.  -  The Independent Chair felt that the awareness rate would have been much higher following the publication of the Jay Report.  The Business Manager referred to Focus Groups being set up within Health sectors to ensure all staff knew about CSE.

 

Councillor Vines asked whether the supervision and line management culture was such that professionals felt confident to approach their line managers when they were unable to cope or out of their depth.  -  The Independent Chair felt that this question should be addressed to the Interim Strategic Director.  There were significant changes and improvements taking place.  Professionals needed to be supported; they would be the ones bringing these changes and improvements forward.

 

Councillor Burton referred to the interim leadership of the Council.  This was concerning as it did not provide the stability that organisations needed.  -  The Independent Chair spoke about the unprecedented level and nature of scrutiny and coverage that Rotherham had experienced.  He felt more confident at the current time that vulnerable children and young people would be identified and correctly helped when they were referred than he would have done one year ago.

 

Councillor Vines felt that strong interim management could play an effective role in the organisation, giving time to recruit strong permanent staff. 

 

Councillor McNeely asked about the responsibility of the Local Authority Designated Officer.  – The Independent Chair confirmed their line management structure and model of support.

 

Councillor J. Hamilton asked about the MASH.  Who did it report to and who line managed it?  What was the political management? The Bradford model had been seen as a success. -  The Independent Chair explained the multi-agency nature of the concept.  Rotherham’s MASH was late in coming together.  Staff were working in the same building but not co-locating and working as one team.  Certain agencies were very reluctant to work together.  The concept of the MASH was recognised as best practice across all national agencies.  The RLSCB was reviewing through audit work the number of cases the MASH dealt with and had made recommendations. 

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that he would like to ask the Interim Strategic Director about Rotherham’s MASH ethos as he had visited it and had observed split working and received defensive responses to supportive questions. 

 

Councillor Burton was aware that most abuse happened in the home by someone the victim knew and trusted.  It would not be right to allow focus on this to be lost because of the spotlight on CSE.  -  The Independent Chair agreed with this.  It was understandable that CSE was at the top of everyone’s agendas.  The previous Strategic Director had been misquoted when emphasising how serious other Safeguarding issues were, specifically referring to neglect.  The Independent Chair confirmed that the other serious concerns would not be sidelined in Rotherham’s correct drive to improve outcomes relating to CSE. 

 

Councillor Reynolds outlined his conviction that Local Authorities must focus on addressing root causes, which would prevent issues at a later stage.

 

Councillor J. Hamilton asked about the RLSCB meetings and purpose.  -  The Independent Chair outlined the new focus of RLSCB meetings to focus on performance and outcomes, rather than forums for presentations and talking. 

 

Councillor J. Hamilton asked for the report to be prefaced to show it was out of date following more recent events.  In future years, she asked for the RLSCB annual report to be brought to the Improving Lives Select Commission earlier. 

 

Resolved: -  (1) That the report and information presented in relation to the 2013/2014 Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board annual report be noted. 

 

(2)  That the information shared regarding the Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board following the publication of the Jay Report and the Ofsted Inspection outcomes be noted.