Agenda item

To receive a presentation from the Chair of Haringey Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB), Sir Paul Ennals, on the LSCB’s Annual Report.

Sir Paul Ennals, the Chair of Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), introduced its annual report for 2015/16.  This was his third and final report as Chair as he would be stepping down in two months time.  It was normal for LSCB chairs to move on after such time.  He was pleased with the progress that had been made in the last three years.  The partnership felt strong and had improved its effectiveness.  It worked together well and challenged effectively. 

There were nevertheless challenges to be faced.  There had already been severe budget pressures on the Police and Council and NHS services were now facing similar challenges.  In addition, schools would now have to address budget reductions.  It could sometimes be difficult for partners to admit to the extent of the difficulties that they faced.  The only way forward was for partners to be sharper and smarter in their approach. 

He felt that the setting up of the Council’s Early Help Service had been of particular significance.  This facilitated interventions at key transitional points and allowed families to be stepped down or up into social care. 

It was never possible to say with absolute confidence that all children were safe.  However, the increase in the number of schools in the borough that were now rated as either good or outstanding by Ofsted had helped to improve levels of safety.  Public health indicators for the borough were mixed but better overall than predicted. 

Although the Police had performed well locally, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary had judged the Metropolitan Police’s arrangements for safeguarding to require improvement.  One particular issue for the LSCB was that the Borough Commander was not responsible for all of the Police that the LSCB worked with.  Police teams also worked with a number of different LSCBs. 

Although he felt that safeguarding arrangements were broadly robust at the moment, there were likely to be big changes in the next year.  The LSCB would have to manage with less money and consideration would need to be given to streamlining services including sharing and collaboration with other boroughs.

In terms of his replacement as Chair, the LSCB executive would be meeting shortly to consider options.  Although his contract ended in May, he was not intending to finish his work until such time as a successor had been appointed to facilitate a smooth transition. 

He answered questions from the Panel as follows:

·         There had been no change in the financial contribution from the Police Service. They currently contributed 2% of the LSCB’s budget.  90% came from the Council.  The level of the Police contribution was based on Metropolitan Police policy.  He hoped that a more equitable system of funding could be developed in time.

·         The number of meetings of the LSCB had been reduced from six to four per year and most boroughs were taking similar steps.   The LSCB’s sub groups were where most of the most significant work took place, including analysis of data and consideration of cases of CSE.  Board meetings currently still required the presence of a large number of people but there were new proposals to develop a smaller core group and devolve more of the work to task and finish and other sub groups.

·         The barriers that there were to the sharing of data were the same as those experienced by every LSCB in London.   In particular, some partners were unable to provide separate statistics for each borough that they dealt with.  The Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) had a key role in analysing data and the situation was now better then it had been three years ago.

·         It had been established that some children and families were moving across borough boundaries on a regular basis and the Bi-borough CSE and Vulnerable Children Project was set up to address this.  There was now a better understanding of the issues and the policies of individual boroughs had now been aligned, saving both time and money.  There was also now a single point of access to services.  Arrangements were better and stronger, although the funding had now expired.  It was hoped to undertake similar work with boroughs to the south of Haringey.  

·         In respect of engagement with children and young people, some progress had been made but not as much as hoped.  They had looked at areas where they were already engaging and had made real progress with some, including CSE and return home interviews for missing children.  A new model of social work practice had been adopted called Signs of Safety and this had a stronger focus on the voice of the child.  Head Teachers had stated that they felt that the new system had a better focus. 

·         He stated that the LSCB did not monitor the budget proposals of individual agencies.  However, the direction of travel demonstrated within the Council’s medium term financial strategy, which involved initiating interventions at an earlier stage, was supported and consistent with the LSCB’s overall philosophy.  He nevertheless felt that there were also risks arising from current polices, such as the possibility that some children and families might find it more difficult to access help.  However, the Council had put in place a whole new team to deal with the large increase in referrals it had experienced last year and this was evidence of a system that responded effectively. 

·         He felt that workforce development was a good option when there was a shortage of money.  Common training programmes had been developed for agencies on the LSCB.  Good quality workforce development was not a big money item. 

·         The LSCB was considering ways in which partners could enhance the “broadly robust and effective” safeguarding arrangements through actions like aligning auditing mechanisms across partners.  He felt that there was more that could be done jointly to reduce duplication but this would take some creative thinking.  Individual agencies were collaborating with other boroughs and on a sub regional level whilst Hackney and City were now working together as a single LSCB.  Leeds had also undertaken some effective conflict resolution initiatives which had led to a steadily reducing level of children in care.

·         There was conclusive evidence that poverty and neglect increased levels of risk.   Local authorities in deprived areas were also significantly more likely to be rated as requiring improvement by Ofsted.  The levels of deprivation in Haringey were higher than two of the other LSCBs that he chaired but, despite this, thresholds for intervention were higher.  More needed to be done in relation to neglect, including multi agency training.

·         Attachment theory was important in child protection.  Very young children developed attachments and this had a large impact on how they learned.  Neuroscience showed that an adverse experience could adversely affect how nerve connections in the brain were developed, making them significantly slower in how they functioned. 

·         It was not possible to provide an exact figure for the number of children who repeatedly went missing as Police data covered episodes and not the number of children.  However, such data was available for looked after children.  Work was taking place to address this issue. 

·         He felt that post code issues had some impact on safeguarding.  Work had been taking place on the profile of CSE and there was now a greater awareness of hotspots and particular locations.

·         Work with schools in respect of CSE and FGM was taking place as part of the healthy schools initiative.  Some young people did not fully understand the issue of consent and work was taking place in schools to address this.  Schools had updated their safeguarding policies and procedures as a result of a historical abuse case but he felt that there were still less than 50% of them that had very good procedures.  There was nevertheless enthusiasm amongst schools to do better.  The Panel noted that FGM was typically addressed at primary schools when children were around the age of nine and this was checked annually.  

·         Sir Paul reported that the communication project in Northumberland Park had involved 3-4,000 young people using Accident and Emergency at the North Middlesex Hospital.  As part of this, information packs on risks to health had been passed to young people.

·         The Prevent initiative was not specifically a safeguarding programme.  However, there could be safeguarding risks arising from radicalisation but the number of children involved was very low and it was less of an issue now.

·         The number of children who were home educated had risen and had numbered 177 in October.  It was not clear what the reason for the increase was.  Parents home educated their children for a mixture of reasons.   Some parents were very good educators and the children thrived.  In other cases, parents were motivated by issues arising from provision for their child’s special educational needs.  It was also possible that there was intent to commit abuse in some cases but it was not possible to know how many children were in jeopardy.  There was a website called “Education Otherwise” where home educating parents could find advice and guidance.   The Panel noted that each home educating family was visited once per year and that this visit was unannounced. 

·         Almost all CSE in Haringey was peer-on-peer abuse and most of these cases were related to gangs.  Work was being done with schools to address this issue and, in particular, the issue of consent. 

In answer to a question, Jon Abbey, the Director of Children’s Services, reported that funding for SEND services was facing challenge but there were not any cuts being made to funding for schools and thresholds were not being raised either.  Education and healthcare plans were now required for children and this required more strategic thinking.  Although the numbers of children with special educational needs had gone up, funding levels had not increased.  Whilst there were no specific proposals within the budget that would have direct implications for children with special educational needs, the proposal to provide, where possible, foster care closer to home would be of benefit to them. 

The Panel thanked Sir Paul for his kind assistance.