Agenda item

Vicky Schofield, Head of Service for First Response, presented a report on the Complex Abuse procedures used within the Authority.

The procedures were used in cases where there were believed to be issues of connected, organised or multiple abuse of children.  Complex Abuse investigations were governed by the same legislative principals as all other investigations of Child Abuse (Section 47, Children Act 1989 and Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015).  The local authority, therefore, had a duty to investigate where there were reasonable grounds to believe that children were suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, taking all necessary action to ensure their welfare as a result.

Currently there was one large scale ongoing Complex Abuse Inquiry in Rotherham using the multi-agency procedure in place under the Rotherham Safeguarding Board.  A bespoke Social Work Team had been established with connected Health, Police and Early Help colleagues.  During the recent OFSTED inspection Inspectors had been impressed with the “forensic” and “tenacious” approach in place specifically identifying the quality of assessments and the impact that Social Workers were having in very challenging circumstances.

Organisational learning arising from the current inquiry had been significant; a learning review had been undertaken in parallel to the operational work in children’s cases setting out specific developments in practice that go beyond the work on the particular cases.

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-

-          There had been learning and development from the current complex abuse work being carried out including historical complex abuse inquiries in Rotherham that was multi-faceted. This included:-

·           working together across the partnership to share information and challenging each other in terms of securing the right outcomes for children

·           how to articulate the information to the South Yorkshire Court, the way in which the Service advocated in individual cases and sometimes challenged within the Court process

·           learning around the way in which the Service understood information when people had been resident in other countries and developing the processes to ensure that information was shared effectively to gain histories/backgrounds

·           some specific learning about families that may be mobile and may move around the UK/across borders to understand where the families went and not lose touch with them/identify where they had moved to

-          Brexit – Social Work agencies across the world had to have at some level some sharing of information and protocols.  The assistance of Embassies would still be required as it was now to negotiate on the Authority’s behalf.  There was experience in the Social Care sector of working in non-EU countries and these principles would be applied once the UK had left the EU

-          The Service had been described by Ofsted as “tenacious” and “forensic”.  The current complex abuse work could be described in that way for the work done to understand the extent of the issue, using information within the Service and proactively seeking out information and continually pressing for the best outcome for the child.  A child would not be left in circumstances that the Service was not uncomfortable with

-          A real strength had been the engagement of partners

-          There were powers under the Local Safeguarding arrangements which could call agencies to account if they were not fulfilling their Safeguarding duties.  The Director of Children’s Services also had a statutory duty and powers to call to account agencies that were not fulfilling their duties.  Neither had had to be used in Rotherham

-          The challenge for the Service was children moving across Council boundaries and ensuring that when they did move they were not lost to agencies.  Work had been carried out locally to develop protocols to identify where children moved to/back into the Borough.  Children who moved across internal boundaries had also been a feature of the work 

-          In terms of “gaps” it was difficult to fully understand the history of children when they had not always lived in the UK as currently within the EU there was not one central place that provided all the information.  That piece of work was still ongoing and trying to find a better resolution in that regard; the information could be found but it took time

-          Work was taking place with the South Yorkshire Courts to ensure that when there was complex and complicated information it could be shared in such a way that enabled the right decisions to be made.  However, it had to be balanced against a person’s Human Rights and the right of privacy as well as the need to share information about numerous people in Court proceedings

-          It was not known what effect the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) would have when working across countries and boundaries with regard to the sharing of information.  Currently the Service was able to utilise the local legislation to enable the protection of children and, until tested in law, the change would not be known

-          The Team was a relatively small team and very well supported given the area of work it was dealing with.  They had additional input from  Advance Practitioners in Children’s Social Care

-          Social Workers were supervised regularly through scrutiny of performance on a fortnightly basis with the supervision also quality assured

-          The Principal Social Worker role was also utilised.  This was a Social Worker who did not have management responsibility but was of sufficient seniority to raise issues with the workforce.  It was an important role in terms of helping to make sure Social Workers were able to escalate if they felt any stresses and strains.  Sickness absence was monitored and continuing to reduce 

-          There was a culture of sharing information and staff across partnerships feeling comfortable to raise issues

-          There was a Detailed Quality Assurance Framework within Children’s Services as well a monthly programme of quality audits that look at multiple cases across the whole organisation.  All managers were involved in quality assurance activities on a monthly basis as information were re-audited and the quality of audits checked.  The learning from the audits was then reviewed and fed back into the Service 

-          On a monthly basis a Team was selected at random and an announced visit made to look at practice and, with the permission of families, sit in on cases.  The Team would be revised 3 months later with the feedback 

-          The Service was part of a regional Peer Review.  As well as the Service being reviewed it had the opportunity to look at other local authorities.  It was envisaged that a Peer Review would take place at some point during the next cycle to look particularly at Looked After Children

-          Approximately 70 children had come into the care of the Authority as a result of the inquiry

Resolved:-  (1)That the report be noted.

(2)  That consideration be given to a further report being submitted in the new Municipal Year to include the data protection changes and any ensuing impact.