Agenda item

To seek assurance that children missing (from Care, Home, Education and Children excluded from schools) are being effectively safeguarded

The Chair welcomed Cllr Gordon Watson; Ailsa Barr, Acting Assistant Director for Safeguarding; Rebecca Wall, Head of Safeguarding, Quality and Learning and Dean Fenton, Head of Service, Access to Education to the meeting.

Officers gave a short presentation to outline the different legislative frameworks which guide the response to children missing from care and home and missing from education. Reference was made to research which highlighted that missing from care and home could indicate wider contextual safeguarding concerns outside the family such as criminal exploitation, child sexual exploitation or honour based violence.

In respect of missing from education, Local Authorities were required to ensure that Children Missing from Education (CME) were identified, reported and tracked, and where appropriate, suitable educational providers found. The term CME referred to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school roll, and who are not receiving a suitable alternative education. A suitable education can be approved via alternative provision such as home tuition or appropriate Elective Home Education. 

The presentation outlined areas which were working well, areas of concerns (what are we worried about) and actions to address concerns (what are we going to do about it).

In respect of areas which were working well, the following measures were highlighted. The Missing Team was now on a permanent footing with a dedicated Team Manager to support the number of Return Home Interviews offered. There was a Missing from Home and Care Scorecard is produced monthly and provided a clear understanding around the Missing Cohort and identifies patterns and trends. There were strong established links with a range of internal and external partners in relation to CME.  The success in reducing the number of children missing from home and care reflected excellent multiagency partnership and improved practice.

At the end of the reporting period there were 160 active cases that remained open to CME which highlighted a 24% reduction from Quarter One.  There were 166 resolved cases in Quarter Four, which showed a significant increase on Quarter One when 120 cases were resolved in the period. Cases of CME needed to remain open until the child was found or until all enquiries had been exhausted and this can mean that cases remained open for extended periods.

In relation to exclusions, the invalidated data for 2018/2019 reflected a stabilisation in permanent and fixed term exclusions in secondary settings; whilst in primary settings fixed terms exclusions had stabilised, there had however been an increase in permanent exclusions.

The presentation highlighted areas of concern – what are we worried about? Looked after children were the largest cohort of missing children, accounting for over recorded episodes. After the Looked After population, the largest Missing group was children and young people who were not currently known to services. The Return Home Interview (RHI) offered an opportunity to explore why the young person went missing and reduce future missing episodes. There had been a seasonal increase in the number of episodes which had meant a decline in RHI completed.

There had been an increase in new CME referrals which highlights an increase when compared with the previous Quarter.  It was reported that a number had been known to have previous episodes of CME that were closed. Evidence suggested that this recurrence was largely due to families being transient and then returning to Rotherham intermittently rather than key concerns related to vulnerability and/or safeguarding issues.

Of the newly identified cases of CME, 39.2% of children were from the Central area of Rotherham at the time of the referral, which correlates to the transient nature of families. This had a financial impact on both schools and council services due to the additional resource required to support CME. The majority of children CME were classified by ethnicity as Roma by their parents (44%) and a further 33% were unclassified. Parents do not have to complete ethnicity as a mandatory declaration and many choose not to do so.

Areas for improvement (what are we going to do about it?) were highlighted. Actions included the development of an Inclusion Performance Scorecard to cross reference child level data with the current Missing Scorecard. Joint work with South Yorkshire Police (SYP) would be continued to strengthen the joint responses to young people missing out of the Rotherham area. There was a planned joint review of complex cases to maximise response and preventative action.

Clarification was sought on information sharing particularly in relation to children missing and if concerns had been identified about hotspots, adults of concern, businesses etc and if Child Abduction Warning Notices had been utilised. It was noted that abduction notices had been used successfully as a deterrent in other parts of the country. Assurance was given about information sharing protocols across agencies when cases of concern were discussed. Examples were given of how information from RHIs was shared and analysed to identify trends and inform responses.

It was noted that in respect of the data sets, the scorecards gave good oversight to establish if there was commonality across the groups of children who have missing episodes or were missing from education. This could ensure prompt action was taken to address concerns. Cllr Watson gave assurance about the governance structures in place to ensure that oversight and challenge was provided on a timely and proportionate basis.

Officers clarified the difference between missing from education which meant a child was not registered on a school roll and not receiving a suitable alternative and persistent absence, which may incur parental fines. It was noted that there was collaboration with other authorities to share information about registration, particularly if there was confusion about local authority boundaries.

Questions were asked to establish how risks were assessed and escalated if a child was missing from education and had been identified as being at risk of forced marriage etc. It was confirmed that in such instances, or if a disclosure is made as part of a RHI, safeguarding procedures would be applied regardless of parental consent.

Further details were sought on the increase of numbers of children at risk of CSE who had missing episodes. It was reported that although there was often a seasonal variation, there was good oversight in relation to the Missing and CSE teams. Both individual and group work had been delivered to understand circumstances to disrupt activities. Steps to address missing episodes for children placed out of authority were explored, particularly in respect of capacity to undertake RHIs and the role of advocates to support children appropriately.

It was noted that there had been a rise in the number of permanent exclusions at primary school. The Assistant Director committed to providing data on the number of exclusions to the Committee later in the year as part of the Educational Outcomes report. It was outlined that SEND strategy was having impact in reducing exclusions and schools were committed to taking a personalised and proactive approach to keep pupils in schools.

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

(2) That a further update on progress be provided to the Commission as part of its 2020/21 work programme.