Cllr
Connor explained that this urgent question was being raised by the
Panel following a meeting the previous week with members of the
Joint Partnership Board (JPB). At this meeting, concerns were heard
from several people about the difficulties in making safeguarding
referrals. An example given was an organisation trying to call the
relevant numbers but not being able to get through to anyone, then
filling out the online referral form but not having received a
response over a week later.
The Panel’s main concerns were:
-
No one answering the Safeguarding phone
line.
-
If a call was put through, no information provided
as to when they would hear back regarding their
concerns.
-
If they filled out the safeguarding form, there was
no recognition from the service that this had been
received.
-
Long waits to hear if the referral had been
accepted.
-
No way of finding out who to contact if they
didn’t hear anything once the form had been
submitted.
-
No reference number that they could use in a follow
up email to track what was happening.
-
When contact from the Council was made, no timeframe
for when any next steps would happen.
The
Panel was therefore keen to understand more about how the process
currently operates and are particularly keen to ensure that, once a
referral is made, the person who has submitted it should always
receive details including a reference number, how long they should
expect to wait for a response and how to get in touch if a response
was not received within that timeframe.
In
response to the concerns raised, Cllr das Neves, Cabinet Member for
Social Care & Wellbeing, commented that these concerns were
difficult to hear but not taken lightly and did validate the issues
that had been previously identified and included in the Improvement
Plan.
Jo
Baty, Director of Adult Social Care made a
number of observations about safeguarding
referrals:
- Safeguarding referrals into Adult Social Care were received
through ‘front door’ arrangements, the purpose of which
was provide a single consistent route into the service. There was
no separate, direct safeguarding telephone line. Safeguarding
referrals could be made by telephone, an online form or written
correspondence from partner agencies. When safeguarding referrals
were received, the focus was on consistent triage and having a
clear recording and audit.
- It was
recognised that callers may experience difficulties in getting
through by telephone at peak time. Callers are then queued,
directed through callback arrangements or provided with information
about how to access information through the website.
- It was
also recognised that, while online referrals were screened and
processed internally, the visibility of how this was being
progressed could be improved.
- Demand
was a big issue and was therefore a cornerstone of the Improvement
Plan and the work of the independent safeguarding review that had
been commissioned to look at the role and function of the
Safeguarding Board and how the Council performed its statutory
duties.
- A
Strategic Programme Lead for Safeguarding had been appointed to
manage the transitional phase while the recommendations from the
safeguarding review were being established. The new appointment to
Deputy DASS would be leading on performance across the service,
including in safeguarding. A new Principal Social Worker would be
joining in March 2026 who would focus on practise at the front
line.
- The
digital roadmap was an important part of the improvement journey as
some practices in the service were outdated.
- Safeguarding referrals were professionally screened to determine
the level of risk, whether the concerns met the Section 42
threshold and whether immediate protective action was required.
Safeguarding investigations could be complex with variations in the
amount of time required.
- Monthly meetings took place with providers to discuss the
responses to their safeguarding enquiries.
- Progress was underway with the transformation of the
‘front door’ to Adult Social Care which was expected to
make a huge difference in how responsive and person-centred the
service was.
Sara Sutton, Corporate Director of Adults, Housing & Health,
emphasised the importance of the Improvement Plan and the
recognition of staffing and capacity levels which had been
discussed under the Haringey Safeguarding Adults Board (HSAB)
agenda item at the previous Scrutiny Panel meeting. An additional
£3.6m of staffing investment had been proposed for the
2026/27 Budget. In addition:
- The
new Adult Social Care Directory would improve the availability of
up-to-date information for signposting.
- The
Connected Communities had now been integrated into the Adult Social
Care service which would further increase capacity.
- There
was scope for complex cases across adults and housing to be
supported in a different way to promote early
intervention/prevention and meet demand challenges.
Cllr
das Neves, Sara Sutton and Jo Baty then responded to questions from
the Panel:
- Helena
Kania expressed concerns about various aspects of the service
including the length of time people waited for a response, the lack
of information about when a response could be expected and the
difficulties that people experienced in using the
website.
- Cllr
Brennan referred to the recent evidence from JPB members who had
said that phone lines were not answered and commented that this was
unacceptable for a safeguarding service. She added that it was not
obvious from the website how to find an emergency safeguarding
telephone number.
- Cllr
Mason reported that she had experienced difficulties in contacting
Adult Social Care on behalf of local
residents including those who use food banks. She observed
that this inhibited opportunities for early intervention and
prevention for people who required support which was likely to led
to greater demand at a later stage.
- Mark
Howe, Deputy DASS, responded to the points above commenting that
the feedback was helpful and fit with the challenges that the
service was working on improving. He added that safeguarding
services were overloaded in local authorities across the country
and acknowledged the worry and concern that this caused to people
who have having difficulty in accessing services. The Council fully
understand that there were system issues and was working to put
those right. He highlighted the effective professional judgment and
sound integrity that he had seen in the safeguarding team since his
recent appointment but that the limitations on the team were due to
the volume of the demand.
- Cllr
Connor said that the feedback from the JPB meeting had been clear
which was that when somebody calls the Council regarding a
safeguarding issue, they want the call to be answered, to be told
how long the process would take and for a reference number and a
future means of contact to be provided so that they could be kept
updated.
- Cllr
O’Donovan made a number of
observations:
o
That the main landing page of the Council website,
the most prominent sections linked to areas such as parking or
Council Tax. Sections relating to Adult Social Care were much lower
down and safeguarding information was not prominently displayed. He
suggested that this information needed to be easy for people to
find, both on the website and from search engines.
o
He queried why residents did not appear to receive
an automatic acknowledgement after submitted a safeguarding concern
online and suggested that should include useful information such as
anticipated timescales for a response and a reference
number.
o
He noted that residents were required to download a
form as a Word document, complete it and then email the document.
He queried why this could not simply be done through an online form
which would be easier, particularly for those using a mobile
device.
o
He noted that there was a main number for adult
social care (ending 1400) and a separate safeguarding number. He
suggested that these numbers should be easy to find and made clear
which numbers were appropriate for specific purposes.
o
He commented that some residents, particularly older
people, did not use the website and that contact information for
safeguarding could be included along with the other contact
information published in Haringey People magazine.
- Cllr
Opoku highlighted a number of
concerns:
o
She commented that people using the telephone
system, were placed on hold and selected the option for a callback
to be made, found that they were often not subsequently contacted.
She queried whether there was a problem with the callback
system.
o
She said that residents should receive an automated
response when completing an online form and that this should be a
quick issue for the Council to fix.
o
She highlighted a concern raised by a JPB member who
experienced difficulties in completing an online form on the
Council website because it would ‘time out’ after a
certain period of time, although the
time limit was unclear and not displayed. This led to information
being lost and the resident needing to fill all the details out
from the beginning.
o
Noting that some community organisations dealt with
cases on behalf of residents, she suggested that they could be
provided with separate contact details in order
to expedite these cases.
- Responding to this wide range of suggestions, Cllr das
Neves:
o
Emphasised that some of the issues were being
addressed through the Improvement Plan.
o
Expressed disappointment that partners had not
raised their concerns with her directly and that many did have
escalation routes and direct contact information.
o
She added that she was passionate about prevention,
that this was an agenda that the Council had been advancing for
some time, including through the neighbourhood health work for
example.
o
She noted that a lot of the comments related to how
the website was managed and that a broader session with Councillors
on this could be worthwhile. She noted that there was data on the
routes that people used to access information (for example, search
terms from Google) and so the design of the front page may be
informed by that.
- Jo
Baty reiterated that the key issues including capacity, workforce
development, digital response, information, advice and guidance
were all in the process of being addressed. She added that the
Council had a strong relationship with the Joint Partnership Board
and worked closely with them, with representation on each of the
reference groups. Her view was that the routes of escalation and
interface with safeguarding would grow from the grassroots up. In
the short term, the transitional arrangements for safeguarding
could be reviewed in light of the
practical points that had been raised and she would also have
further discussions with the JPB at forthcoming meetings. This
commitment was welcomed by Cllr Connor.