Agenda item

Presented by Brian Boxall, Chairman of LSCB.

Brian Boxall, Chair of LSCB gave an update on the headline issues of 2013-14.

National issues were understood because they had become local issues, including Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) which had links to gangs and Youth Offending. The Introduction of MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub), was as a result of the Children’s Services provision having been integrated with Adult Services, including the mental health services.

The vacancy rate of social workers was approximately 30%, with the agency rate also at approximately 30%.

The Police CAIT (Child Abusive Investigative Team) has challenged Scotland Yard. There were a number of items still to be addressed, and as a result there was a potential worry that children were being abused in the meantime.

Another CAIT challenge was that Barking & Dagenham and Havering services were both situated in Redbridge, which was a distance away physically. Additional concerns were that there was an increase in Looked After Children (LAC), child protection and CSE.

Mental health provision for adolescent children included self-harm, and a potential increased risk. The LSCB had asked schools to understand the risks involved.

The LSCB had been liaising with the coroner more on child deaths to identify potential issues and address any concerns.

There had been some struggles within the LSCB with how best to deal with youth violence, but every service had started to pull together to give their input.

Provision for adults didn’t take into account their role as parents, just as individuals. The transition of children into adult services had helped improve this service. Some of the major issues involved were issues of parental neglect including mental, physical and sexual. The mental health of the individuals as parents was a concern which was being addressed. 

Schools were doing well, but still had some work to do as not all schools were forthcoming.in providing the right level of safeguarding concern. A Safeguarding review was being planned within schools, as some schools were not meeting the requirements, including some academies and sixth forms. Safeguarding was paramount for all children. Weak schools were to be identified and sent to the committee.

A safeguarding officer had been dedicated for schools, to ensure a single point of contact for all schools was established.

The LSCB reported to the Children’s Board Strategy Body since 2006, to look at Child Protection. Everyone had to be treated the same as per section II, and the LSCB had the statutory power to demand their support. It was well known that if the board wanted something to be done, then it would be completed.

A report to the Chief Executive was both intended to report to and change the direction of children’s services.

There were robust links with schools out of the borough. The LSCB’s job was to challenge the people placing children out of borough, and ensure the right provision was given to each school.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) was a key item in a joint meeting with the Local Authority in which midwives were part of the discussion.  A specific conference on FGM recently showed that roughly 10 cases had been identified through maternity services; however some GPs were not engaged with reporting back on these issues.  It was suggested that teachers may be able to identify some of those at risk, taking messages back into schools, as this item is a new and sensitive area. It is considered that a child is at risk if the mother is a victim of FGM. Guidance for schools from the DFES is being published on FGM.

Some schools lacked engagement for child protection, but overall the services were much improved. The schools were engaging better due to MASH, as they had a better picture of the children within the context of their families.

The Local Authority had responsibility to make sure working within schools was taking place.  Agencies were monitored to ensure their processes were robust The Virtual Head for Looked After Children had been appointed in order to achieve those ends. 

The board wanted to visit two schools - one that does and one that doesn’t engage with safeguarding processes.