Agenda and minutes

The Chair of Corporate Parenting Committee and Chair of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee had previously agreed , outside the meeting,  that they would alternate the  responsibility of Chair  for the joint meetings . The   Chair of the  Children’s Safeguarding  Policy and Practice Committee was due to chair this meeting.

The Chair of Corporate Parenting Committee and Chair of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee had previously discussed the chairing of these joint meetings and they had agreed that they would alternate this responsibility.  Councillor Rice   was appointed as Chair for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Stennett and Debbie Haith, Head of Children and Families service.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at Item 9 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 12 below).

No items of  urgent business were considered.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, license, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of Interest put forward.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

There were no deputations, questions or petitions put forward.

To consider and agree the minutes of the Joint meeting of the Corporate Parenting Committee and Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee  held on the 17 March 2011.

The Committee considered the minutes from the previous joint meeting held on the 17 March 2011.  A remark was made on the  timeliness of the  Joint Committee considering these minutes as it would be difficult to recall the issues discussed at the last meeting.  A suggestion was made to have the minutes agreed with by the Corporate Parenting Committee and Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee  at their next available meetings and not at the next joint  meeting in March. The Committee agreed that this suggestion be taken forward.

Clarification was sought on the number of  children at the time of the meeting  in March that were subject to child protection plans  as there were two figures contained in the minutes .  The Committee noted that it was likely to be 326 children but  Committee members would receive an email  update on this. The service have since advised that

The 326 figure  relates to the number of Children and Young people subject to Child Protection Plans across the Department; the figure of 253 is the number of children and young people subject to Child Protection Plans within the Safeguarding and Support Service. The data came from Iain Low’s presentation  about the work of the Safeguarding and Support.

Members will consider a briefing paper which summarises Professor Munro’s final report. The Government responded in detail to the report, and a summary of the key points of their response is attached, courtesy of Reconstruct Research Service.

Committee members considered a summary of the Munro review into   child protection along with the government’s response to the review. The key components of the recommendations from Munro report were: developing social work capacity; ensuring children were communicated with, and that the child was at the centre of the organisations process.  Overall, the government response was to agree with the recommendations of the review. However, the Independent Member of the  Children’s  Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee, advised that the  government had not set out how local authorities were able to change fully to the direction of preventative services at a time of reduced funding for Children’s services. It was anticipated that local authorities would begin to review their models of social care following this report  and it was suggested that the social work care model developed in Hackney would be worthwhile to look at. The Chair of  the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee agreed to take this forward as an action.

Clarification was sought in whether the Children’s service had undertaken a systems analysis approach to the changes that would be required following the Munro report.  The Committee were informed that separately to considering the Munro recommendations and impact on the service,  there was an equal need to examine sufficiency  to  know  the level of services that would need to be  commissioned in order to meet the needs of  children coming into the care of children’s services. For example this would mean considering whether there were right levels of accommodation available for looked after children and care leavers, now and in the future. There would also  to  follow some joint strategic assessment work   with the involvement of partners to look at  how services are provided. The  Children’s service would also  be completing an exercise on care pathways to examine how the service identifies children coming into care.

 The Committee were advised that to meet the requirements of  the prevention agenda , would mean  the service, along with partners,  looking at  incrementally  compiling  services around the support that would be needed to prevent a  child  coming into care.  This support package would  need to include voluntary sector and partner agencies with consideration given to how the services were provided in totality. The Committee noted that these were high level changes  which required consideration of the strategic direction  of the service, involved  service redesign and considering how other children related services could be  included in this  support offer.  This  could only be led  by the incoming Children’s Services Director who would be in post  on the 14 November. It was agreed that the Cllr Reith and Cllr Rice would  speak with the  new director  about how the Munro recommendations would be taken forward with a  more substantial report  likely  to be  available for consideration by both Committees in May 2012.  Members of the Committee learnt  that  in the  meantime the Safeguarding Team were already working with  the Early Intervention and Prevention service  to look at how  they can support the de-escalation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

This report  informs members about children who go missing from care and missing from home. The report updates them on statutory guidance and responsibility, and  further informs them about the local Haringey context and the actions being taken.

 The Committee considered a report about children that go missing from care and missing from home . The Committee gained further understanding about the  statutory guidance  followed by the council when children go missing  and what the council’s responsibilities are .   This was a particular national area of concern especially when it was concerning  vulnerable  children and  children under the age of 11.  Haringey  was part of 3 London boroughs awarded  £300,000 of funding over the next 3 years  through an  externally funded joint project with Aviva (formerly Norwich union), the Railway Children international charity and Barnardos. This was an early intervention project, beginning in November,  aimed at  engaging with and supporting  with children that were likely to go missing from home and reduce the level of harm that they could come to. 

Members of the Committee were provided with some local context  about the children that are reported missing in Haringey.  Usually the primary sources for reporting missing children to the service were the police.   It was noted that  children could be reported for a number of reasons  i.e lateness in  coming  home from school,  children going missing in the shopping centre,  missing from home overnight  or not coming back following  attendance at evening events .  All of these circumstances were recorded by the Children’s service . The Safeguarding service  had  established a triage  system involving a multi agency response to  absences in their  area of responsibility . This was set out in appendix 2 of the report  and used  to assess and measure the level of concern that should be given when they receive a report that a child has gone missing.  Where there was the highest concern it often indicated that there is an improper activity involved which lead to a series of  assessments and  speedy responses.

Section 5.2 of the report detailed the number of children between April and mid September 2011 that  had gone missing. It was noted that 51 children out of 630  LAC   had gone missing from care or had a period of unauthorised absence. The Committee noted that of these 51 children there were two children still missing. Child A  came from an extended Gypsy Roma  family where other members of the family have previously gone missing and returned . At the current time Police were trying to locate this young person. The second young person went missing from care . He was an unaccompanied minor  and UK boarder agencies had been notified as he has previously tried to leave the country.   The Committee noted that when children go missing from a placement the service will try and ascertain whether  there are any issues with the child placement .

Some Members expressed particular concern about LAC that are placed in residential homes  as they seemed to be the highest number  going missing .Officers explained that children that go missing from residential homes  are older teenagers and there will a higher difficulty in dealing with these absences with different levels of engagement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

None

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of Item 13 as it contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985): paras 1 & 2: namely information relating to any individual, and information likely to reveal the identity of an individual.  

The press and public  were excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item as it contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972(as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985): pares 1&2: namely information relating to any individual, and information likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

A programme of audits has been established by the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice  Committee in order to monitor practice and performance in Children’s Social Care, and identify areas of good practice and areas for improvement. The independent member of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice committee  was asked to examine new referrals to the safeguarding service in a particular week in July 2011.

A programme of audits had been established by the  Children’s Safeguarding Policy  and Practice  Committee in order to monitor practice and performance in Children’s Social Care, and identify areas of good practice and areas for improvement. An audit of new referrals between July the 12^th and 19^th 2011 had been examined by the Independent Member with involvement from Cllr Amin. The findings  had been considered by  Children’s Safeguarding Policy  and Practice  Committee at their meeting in September  and were also shared with the Corporate Parenting  Committee  as part of this joint meeting.

Comment was made on the following:  the number of  cases where  statutory timescales were not being fully adhered to ,whether there were fewer referrals to the service but higher numbers of children being taken into care and the length of time the cases were open for  in comparison  to other comparator boroughs.   The Independent Member of the Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee  advised that at the time of writing the report the 2010/11  comparator data  had not been published. Since this report  comparator data  for 2010/11 conveyed that Haringey were now  more significantly in line with comparator boroughs in terms of  number of children coming into care. In response to the query about the adherence to timescales i.e. for core and initial assessments, in this sample of cases,  social workers were awaiting  information from GP’s or teachers in order to decide how to take the referral forward. Overall the timescales for dealing effectively with referrals was improving . In cases where there was a risk of significant harm to a child, these  were prioritised.  Due to the nature of some referrals there was a  need to do preparatory work to understand how best to take the referral forward . This was further explained by the Head of First  Response in the attached  action plan arising from the  audit.

A  councillor  attending Regulation 33 visits  asked the Independent Member whether in her experience in working with the council she had seen  missing information from files .The Independent Member confirmed that the paper work she had seen in files relating to this audit  were up to date .

It was further  confirmed that the follow up actions relating to the audit were attached to the report and the cases looked at  in July would be further followed up in November to  check their progression or outcomes.

The Committee thanked the Independent Member for the insight and knowledge gained from  considering the real life and complex cases in the audit  and  understanding how  Social Workers were dealing with them. Cllr Amin had assisted with this audit and was thanked for her input and advice.  Councillor Amin  advised the Committee that some of the social work practices she had seen,  being applied to the referrals, were to a very high standard  and the service should be commended for this.

Arising from the discussion of this paper  Members asked various questions and learnt the following:

• That the number of children  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To consider any items admitted under Item 2 above.

None

05 March 2012  7.00pm

05 March 2012