Agenda item

The work of the Slough Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (SLSCB) was based on co-operation and commitment from partner organisations. The Panel had discussed the SLSCB’s annual report in November 2015, noting concerns over quality assurance, resourcing and the potential duplication of work given the installation of SCST. The Ofsted report had been published subsequently.

The Ofsted report issued six recommendations, which would be used for future work to focus SLSCB’s efforts. However, as well as requiring partner engagement, SLSCB also may need to address the structural issues arising from its status as a relatively small board given Slough’s unitary status; many equivalent bodies covered an entire county, but SLSCB needed to undertake an equal amount of work in many areas (e.g. organising meetings). The Prime Minister had announced a fundamental review of the system, which would report Spring 2016, and this may well impact on future arrangements.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  The understanding of roles and responsibilities regarding SLSCB was inconsistent in partner organisations. Thames Valley Police were very engaged although funding remained an issue. SCST was also very involved (especially with regards to child sexual exploitation and missing children) whilst SBC was adjusting to its new role since SCST’s installation. Other partners could be more passive. The SLSCB Chair’s position was based on influence and applying pressure for action.

·  However, a major issue was ensuring that agreed actions were carried through. One issue on this matter was getting representatives with sufficient seniority to attend SLSCB meetings.

·  A CSE Co-ordinator had been appointed, as well as a permanent Business Manager and administrative support.

·  Multi-agency auditing was taking place and partners had been asked to address issues arising. Whilst this was not fully completed by the time of Ofsted’s inspection, SLSCB would now be in a position to demonstrate the completion of these audits.

·  A threshold document had also been circulated, although required updating in light of Ofsted (e.g. CSE, female genital mutilation and Prevent legislation). As a result, this had been worked on and was ready as a draft document for SCST. SLSCB was offering challenge to partners regarding the quality of referrals, and performance indicators were demonstrating a greater understanding of related matters.

·  As trust in the system improved, so matters coming to SLSCB would be filtered appropriately. Previously, the reputation of social services had led to too many disparate or unsuitable issues being referred to SLSCB.

·  The SLSCB Chair was not in a position to enforce changes in membership, although they could advise partners. Representation from officers who were insufficiently senior to enforce actions in partner organisations had been an issue. As a result, a request had been made for Director level representatives, and this was increasing.

·  Regardless of the outcome of the review into boards, SCST would remain a provider and SLSCB a co-ordinator; therefore, SCST could not take over SLSCB. However, SLSCB did support different means for achieving its objectives, and the review could allow it more freedom in pursuing this. SLSCB also had ambitions to become an ‘early adopter’ of any changes, rather than waiting passively for their imposition.

·  The issue of resourcing was regularly raised at SLSCB meetings and in its annual report. SLSCB would overspend by approximately £20,000 in 2015 – 16, and next year stood to have the same budget. As a result, it needed to consider its delivery plan.

·  Funding difficulties had also led to SLSCB meetings being too focused on this matter, when effort could have been more effectively spent elsewhere.

·  SBC had supported SLSCB’s improvement initiatives and made some direct interventions.

·  SLSCB was disappointed with the progress noted by Ofsted. Performance data and auditing would be needed to analyse the work of partners effectively, although SCST had helped improve SLSCB’s position.

·  Cabinet was committed to placing children as the top priority. This needed to be disseminated to partners, and reciprocated to build trust in working relationships.

·  As part of any realignment of SLSCB work, agendas would be focused on a smaller number of central issues to improve impact. However, it was a concern that partners who worked well together in other forums were less effective in SLSCB.

·  To improve frontline practice, the work of SLSCB sub groups would be assessed. This would then be used to raise all sub groups to the levels of the most productive.

·  Members raised concerns as to whether problems with auditing affected all areas of SBC. SBC’s Chief Executive had raised concerns as to whether audits were being completed in Children’s Services, and if so whether this was to an adequate level. In future, SBC needed to reach a point where auditing was an automatic function rather than an activity which was only conducted upon request.

Resolved:

1.  That the Panel receive a report on progress in July 2016, and a full update on progress made on Ofsted recommendations in autumn 2016.

2.  The Commissioner for Education and Children to investigate potential funding from SBC for SLSCB.

3.  That a Member of the Panel would attend an SLSCB meeting, with a reciprocal return visit also to take place.