Agenda item

The Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) was a statutory body and therefore its role was bound by law. The Annual Report was being presented in a new format for the first time, and mirrored the manner in which its adult equivalent safeguarding board had reported to the Health Scrutiny Panel on 16^th October 2018. The report also contained a series of hyperlinks which could be used to provide further detail.

The foreword highlighted LSCB’s overlap with the Adult Safeguarding Board and also the Safer Slough Partnership (SSP). These relationships had also allowed for an increased focus on cohesion and an economy of effort through avoiding duplication. There had also been considerable consideration as to LSCB’s objectives, the next steps to take on these and the use of data to identify the focus for effort (e.g. early help, setting thresholds). On the issue of thresholds, a series of seminars with a range of relevant agencies had been held to discuss the appropriate at levels at which they should be set and the impact of requests made by the Slough Children’s Services Trust (SCST).

With regard to Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), LSCB was keen to stress the broader context of other forms of exploitation in this matter. As a result, the process focused on the range of risks to which children could find themselves subject (e.g. gangs, modern slavery). LSCB had clear and positive policies and procedures on its statutory responsibilities which were enacted across a number of partner agencies.

A training needs analysis had taken place across LSCB’s partnerships. This had identified the management of allegations as a key area, with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) having received 178 referrals in 2017 – 18. Whilst this was in line with expectations and the volumes of comparable local authorities, LSCB felt that more could have been received from the local community and voluntary agencies. LSCB had sought information from Berkshire Active regarding the recent stories about football coaching, but this did not highlight any suspected cases in the local area.

Within Slough, LSCB had identified a need to ensure that those involved understood the responsibilities involved. Numbers for private fostering in Slough were also low, potentially suggesting that there may be a need to raise awareness of the issue. Meanwhile, LSCB’s communications had been an area of development, with LSCB’s Manager having established the website on which she would continue to work to bolster its impact.

LSCB had evaluated the extent to which it was having an impact in Slough. Thematic audits had been conducted and reported back to LSCB on issues such as neglect and gangs. These had improved understanding of the key areas of concern. The Slough Strategic Safeguarding Executive Board involved the Police, the Care Commissioning Group and senior officers from SBC. It met every 2 months to co-ordinate activity and develop common processes and clear governance. This had looked at gangs and CSE, and was also having a positive impact on the local picture.

The Serious Case Reviews Sub-Group had examined specific cases. Whilst none of these had been published, learning reviews were undertaken on the incidents; in one case, this had lead to the creation of a video on the risks associated with water births. The Child Death Overview Panel had also conducted work, but these involved illnesses or permanent conditions rather than traumatic incidents.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  The rise in referrals to LADO in the second half of 2017 – 18 was ascribed to increased awareness. It also allowed for deeper analysis of the local picture.

·  Cases where no outcome was recorded could indicate that criminal proceedings had started. The level of 7% was in line with expectations.

·  The report on the Safeguarding Adults Board had provided a breakdown of the types of cases involved. Members requested that this be provided in future LSCB reports. This should provide a breakdown of issues such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage and prolonged school absence. On the last matter, the Police had led a campaign on school attendance.

·  The referrals regarding modern slavery to LSCB had not met the required threshold to be regarded as such. However, 2 cases had been referred in the week of this meeting and would see strategy discussions held on them.

·  It was also acknowledged that any work on issues such as FGM should involved working with communities to engage with them and increase understanding of the importance of the matter. This involved supporting family members to explain to communities in their countries of origin why they would not subject their children to such procedures. The complexity and sensitivity of such questions meant links with community leaders were vital. In addition, midwives and health visitors were helping with the identification and management of cases.

·  The Safeguarding Team now had a manager and administrator; this left a Development Manager as the remaining vacancy.

·  The Panel raised the question as to whether thresholds were currently too high; this comment had been made by other parties too. However, an overly low threshold could impeded SCST in resolving the most important cases urgently. SCST’s data had been analysed and they had been receiving more front door inquiries than neighbouring authorities. An indication that the threshold was not too high was an absence of repeat referrals (which would be expected if cases in need of remedy were being refused). The situation was under constant monitoring given its importance.

·  The high number of referrals could also be attributed to professionals lacking clarity on the criteria. These criteria were being publicised through seminars; in addition, early help was being offered to deal with cases requiring support short of intervention.

Resolved:  That the Annual Report be noted.