Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to present the Medway Safeguarding Children Board (MSCB) Annual Report 2016-17 to the Health and Wellbeing Board. The MSCB Independent Chair publishes an annual report describing how agencies in Medway have worked together through the year and how effective the arrangements are in Medway to keep children and young people safe from harm, abuse or neglect.

The report summarises the progress that has been made in 2016-17 and the plans to develop this further in 2017-18.

Discussion

The report was introduced by the Director of Children and Adults Services. There was a statutory requirement for the Medway Safeguarding Children Board (MSCB) to produce an annual report. The 2016/17 Report, which had been published in September 2017, outlined the work of the Board during 2016-17. The Report had previously been presented to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to the Community Safety Partnership. Board Members included a range of partners agencies, Kent Police, Medway Council and the voluntary sector. The Board had an Independent chairman and a lay member to the represent the local community perspective.

The role of the MSCB was prescribed by the Government as follows:

·         To develop arrangements for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.

·         To communicate and raise awareness of the need to keep children safe.

·         To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of what is done locally.

·         To participate in local planning of services for children.

·         To undertake reviews of serious cases.

The MSCB had particular concerns about the secure training centre located in Medway and also in relation to young offenders. A BBC Panorama programme looking at concerns relating to the secure training centre had resulted in significant national level action being taken.

The MSCB had been commended for its LADO (local authority designated officer) service. The role of the LADO was to undertake investigations into allegations relating to professionals working with children.  There had been a substantial increase in LADO referrals, many of which related to the secure training centre and to the Cookham Wood young offenders prison.

Medway was within the 41% of most deprived areas nationally, although there was also some areas of relative affluence. 21.4% of children under 16 were living in poverty, which was worse than the national average. The rate of family homelessness was also worse than average.

There had been a reduction in the number of children subject to a child protection plan, Medway having previously had a higher than expected number of children subject to a plan. Initiation of child protection plans required delicate balancing between avoiding unnecessary interference in family life while ensuring that there was intervention where children were at risk.

Addressing child neglect was at the forefront of the MSCBs work following  national high profile cases. A Graded Care Profile was under development. This tool would help to ensure that health and care professionals were better able to detect cases of neglect. Work was being undertaken with young people to highlight issues around domestic abuse and information had been sent out to all Medway schools. Robert Napier School had used a drama production used to engage directly with young people. The MSCB was also working to address and reduce the risk of young people being sexually exploited online.

The undertaking of serious case reviews was a significant function of the Board. Two had been undertaken during the previous year in relation to the deaths of young people. In one case, a girl and her mother had died having only lived in Medway for a short period. The case had highlighted the need for effective engagement between local authorities. In the second case, it had been identified that the risk of the child dying could have been significantly reduced if the family had been supported to enable the child to regularly attend health appointments. A further serious case review was due to look at the issues raised in relation to the secure training centre. This was due for completion in April 2018.

The Board was advised that future priority areas for the MSCB included domestic abuse, neglect and children at risk of exploitation.

The Government was looking at new ways in which local arrangements could be put in place to support multi agency working. A consultation had been published  with responses due by 31 December. New guidance in relation to the arrangements for replacing child safeguarding boards specified that the local authority, clinical commissioning group and Police must be joint and equal partners to support new arrangements.

A Board Member was concerned by the relatively small budgetary contributions to the MSCB made by the Secure Estate, given the significant proportion of MSCB work that this contributed. The Board Member also asked whether data for the number of child sexual exploitation, Female Genital Mutilation and LADO referrals could be provided and whether a comparison with other areas could be provided. The Member was concerned that only 86% of Medway Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) staff were compliant with Level 3 Safeguarding Children Training and that only 71% were compliant with PREVENT training. The Member considered that this figure should be 100%.

In response, the Director of Children and Adults Services advised that discussions were taking place with the Ministry of Justice in relation to the issues that having such a significant Secure Estate in Medway brought to the area. A Performance sub-group of the MSCB had been established. Work was ongoing to strengthen CAMHS provision following transfer of service delivery from the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to the North East London NHS Foundation Trust.

Another Board Member suggested that a joint letter from the chair of the various boards responsible for overseeing the work of the MSCB be sent to the Home Office to emphasise the funding challenge that Medway faced due to having the presence of a significant secure estate. The Board Member also questioned whether there was a specific need to look at school holidays and the impact that this had on levels of neglect. It was suggested that a contributory factor could be that children were not being provided free school meals during holiday periods. The Director of Children and Adults Services undertook to investigate further both the issues raised.

A HWB Board Member was concerned that the secondary school representative on the MSCB had only attended one MSCB Board meeting during the year. It was also requested that a link to the play, developed by students of Robert Napier School, to raise awareness of sexting by pupils, be circulated to the Board. The Director of Children and Adults Services agreed that the attendance record of the secondary school representative at MSCB meetings had been disappointing. While it was important for a representative to attend, overall, secondary schools in Medway engaged well with the children’s safeguarding agenda. It was agreed that a link to the Robert Napier student play would be shared with Health and Wellbeing Board Members.

A Board Member highlighted that the covering report presented stated that the Deputy Director of Children and Adults had stated, during presentation of the annual safeguarding report to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, that it was unclear how social workers informed the work of case workers at Cookham Wood and Medway STC. It was agreed that further information would be provided to the Board in relation to this. The issue of invoicing other local authorities was also raised as it had previously been agreed that Medway would invoice the originating local authority of young people at Cookham Wood or Medway STC. The Director of Children and Adults Services advised that the Council employed three professionally qualified social workers who worked within the Secure Estate. The posts were funded by the Ministry of Justice. The Council was the employer to ensure that these staff had access to safeguarding supervision within the Council and MSCB network. Case workers supported young people to be rehabilitated following their detention. The Independent Chair of the Board had already written to local authorities to seek contributions towards costs for young people who originated from another local authority area.

In response to a Member question, the Director of Children and Adult Services said that the Council was a corporate parent to children for which it had a care order.

Decision

The Board considered and commented on the annual report and the effectiveness of local services in keeping children safe.