Back to top arrow icon Back to top
  1. Home
  2. Agenda item
 Menu

Agenda item

City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership - Annual Report (19.05)

To review the City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership Annual Report (2022/23).

Minutes:

4.1 The City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership (CHSCP) annual report is a standing item within the Commission’s work programme. This report allows the Commission to have oversight of local child safeguarding work which can in turn guide and inform topics selected for future scrutiny.

 

4.2 The Chair thanked Jim Gamble, Independent Commissioner for Child Safeguarding for the CHSCP annual report which provided a comprehensive account of safeguarding activity across Hackney. The Independent Commissioner thanked all local agencies for their contributions to the 2022/23 report and highlighted the following key issues to members present:

·  The report derailed progress against key safeguarding priorities.  The report primarily responded to CHSCP priorities for 2022/23, including staff wellbeing.  The wellbeing of the local workforce was critical in delivering high quality services and in the effective safeguarding of local children. A staff safeguarding survey revealed that there was much willingness to engage with CHSCP and staff on the whole indicated that they were well supported by their line managers.

·  There was a need for safeguarding organisations to engage further with local housing providers and with voluntary sector organisations to raise awareness, extend networks of good practice and support information sharing.

·  Child Q update report response was disappointing in that the police did not acknowledge institutional racism in the force for which there was a growing body of evidence to support this.

·  Since the publication of the Child Q review, all local agencies had committed to anti-racist policies and practice, yet to date there was little tangible evidence of these being applied and this was being followed up by the CHSCP.

·  The CHSCP spoke to children in their own environment which was a positive development in helping to reach the authentic voice of children and young people. The CHSCP would be teaming up with other agencies to further develop this approach for this year.

·  There is a national programme of ‘getting the basics right’ in safeguarding, but the view of local practitioners here in Hackney was that this approach was too Eurocentric and would need to be adapted with the project lead (NSPCC) when applied in the borough.

·  The reviews that the CHSCP undertake are highlighting a number of new issues for the locality, such as the management of sex offenders within the community.  A local case referral had promoted a broader assessment of provision to identify if there were any systems that needed to be strengthened.

·  Working Together had been consulted upon by the government to implement a number of developments to local safeguarding arrangements.  Whilst some of these were welcomed others were felt to be untested. Of particular concern was the suggested removal of the Independent Chair from local partnerships to be replaced by the Head of Children's Services as this would raise questions about accountability and the ability to provide independent challenge to local safeguarding arrangements.  It was suggested that this weakened local safeguarding arrangements, and this was the view of Hackney and many other local safeguarding partnershipss who also did not support this move.

 

Questions from the Commission

4.3 From the safeguarding work across the partnership, what were the key safeguarding risks and challenges to emerge in Hackney for 2022/23?  a) Are there any new or emerging risks that the Commission needs to be made aware of? b) Are safeguarding concerns in Hackney any different to other London boroughs, or are there specific risks for Hackney? c) How do these assessments inform local safeguarding priorities for 2023/24?

·  (JG) The mental health crisis has been rapidly developing across the country and Hackney was no different in this respect.  More recently the crisis in Palestine had substantially increased the risk and incidence of faith based hate crimes and the potential impact that this has on young people particularly in relation to becoming radicalised.  This would need to be carefully assessed and monitored locally by all agencies.

 

4.4 Like many other boroughs across London, Hackney is having to place large numbers of families in temporary accommodation due to the lack of social housing and other housing options within the borough.  From a safeguarding perspective, is the CHSCP aware of evidence, here or elsewhere, of heightened safeguarding risks to children placed in TA?

·  (JB) Once a child has left care at the age of 18 they will have the support of a personal adviser (PA).  The leaving care team works very closely with housing service to develop stronger pathways including within supported living arrangements for those that may need ongoing post 18 support.  The borough has a strong record of supporting care leavers, but access to affordable housing is a real challenge across London.  Working closely with housing providers helps the corporate parenting team to engage with young people earlier on the issue of future housing which can lead to better planning.

 

4.5 The Chair followed up from the questioning above, to ask whether there were any associations between the referrals for children’s social care being received by the department and if these families were residents in temporary accommodation? 

·  (JB) Housing was a significant issue for many families that the children’s social care service was working with.  It was noted that many of the families are placed outside of the borough in temporary accommodation, therefore their safeguarding needs would also be met by the borough in which they reside.

 

4.6 In terms of the risk of increased radicalisation of children, an Open Democracy report noted that children were being referred to this programme in relation to support for Palestinian cause.  Are children in Hackney being referred to anti-radicalisation programmes in Hackney and if so, how is this reconciled with entitlement to freedom of speech?  What are the safeguarding implications of such referrals?

·  (JG) When the conflict in Palestine was triggered CHSCP was in immediate contact with the Borough Commander and a gold group was configured.  It is the role of CHSCP to ensure that children are properly supported from being radicalised but also able to exercise their free speech. CHSCP has worked with Prevent for the same purpose.  It was encouraging that there were new policies being considered by political parties which may support a more beneficial role in the way that children are engaged in respect of risks of radicalisation.

 

4.7 The cost of living crisis continues to put local children and families under severe pressure which may have wide ranging implications for the safeguarding of children (e.g. possible increase in cases of neglect, exposure to domestic violence, increasing prevalence of anxiety and mental health issues).  Has there been any noticeable trends in local child safeguarding risks/cases as a result of the cost of living crisis, and if so, how has the partnership and other services responded? Is City & Hackney Safeguarding Partnership confident that there is an effective multi-agency preventative (early help) offer to help address emerging safeguarding needs arising from cost of living crisis?

·  (JB) When parents are crushed by debts and anxiety this can affect their ability to effectively parent their children.  In all its work with families, children’s social care must view families in context, recognising the financial and other pressures that they are under.  Therefore, workers will aim to ensure that families have access to appropriate grants and other resources which may be able to support them.  The Mayor of London has extended free school meal provision for primary aged children to the end of July 2025 which will help struggling families and the local authority would be working to maximise this support.  In terms of early help, the council operates 21 children’s centres, numerous youth clubs and a robust supporting families programme.  There were also good relationships with local schools to help reach out to children and families across different settings.  Social workers worked together in partnership with all other agencies to maximise the support provided to children and families.

·  (JG) The CHSCP held a dedicated meeting on the cost of living impact on local families which was attended by all local stakeholders.  Of particular interest to the partnership was the impact that the cost of living crisis was having on staff, and the pressures that this created on them.

 

As a follow up; Cllr Young asked how families were being supported who were required to go on a waiting list for services?  What support was available in the interim?

·  (JB) If the referral for children’s social care, there is no waiting list. Where there was a waiting list for other statutory services, such as CAMHS, the appointed social worker would continue to support the family in liaison with the in-house clinical service team within children’s social care.  If families were requiring specialist advice or support they could also be supported by agencies within the early help system.  There was WAMHS which was available in all local schools, providing mental health support to children in these settings.

·  (JG) It should be noted that all services are managing a decline in central government funding and resources which was placing significant pressures on service delivery, and in some areas this had resulted in cuts to specific services.

 

4.8 The CHSCP published its Child Q update in June of last year, which suggested that more should be done to ensure that local schools adopt a safeguarding first approach, particularly in relation to behaviour management in schools. a) What has been the response of local schools? b) Has there been any changes in local school safeguarding policies?  c) Has there been any ‘uptick’ in school staff requesting safeguarding / adultification training?

·  (JG) On the whole, the report was received well by local schools. The CHSCP has continued its safeguarding audit work with schools.  To support this safeguarding work with schools, it has strengthened its central coordination role, bringing in the head of a local academy to facilitate more internal challenge.  A safeguarding first approach was a philosophy not a policy and the CHSCP intended to measure the impact of this in its work with local schools.  The update report also indicated that it would independently survey the schools and local young people to assess progress and it was working with education colleagues to undertake this.

·  (PS) There has been an audit process and the response of schools has been incredibly positive.  Despite the Child Q report did have some difficult messages for schools, most schools have engaged with CHSCP and HE in follow up work stemming from the report.  It was important to note that whilst not all schools agreed, there was good engagement across the sector.

 

4.9 Continuing with Child Q, adultification bias was a central theme in the Safeguarding Practice Review, and a programme of adultification training was commissioned across all partner agencies? a) Can the CHSCP update the Commission on the rollout of the adultification training across Hackney? b) Are all partner agencies, especially the police and education, signing up to this training in sufficient / equal numbers?

·  (JG) Adultification training was provided by Hackney Education through to schools and elsewhere.  A real priority for the CHSCP was to ensure that this training was cascaded through the community and voluntary sector partnership, so that training was being delivered by local people who know and understand these issues in Hackney.  Police attendance at this training offer had improved significantly since the time it was first offered and the new Borough Commander was committed to this training.

·  (PS) Concurred that there had been a positive engagement from the Borough Commander and that there was a good engagement between schools and local policing.  The Safe Schools Policing model was being reassessed to identify if there were new approaches that could be implemented locally, to create a Hackney specific approach. The Borough Commander had attended both primary and secondary head teacher’s meetings to explore new ways of cooperative working between the police and schools. 

·  (Deputy Mayor Bramble) Noted that it was important to move forward from Child Q, not only to allow Child Q herself time to withdraw from the spotlight and to heal, but also to ensure that local agencies focused on the underlying conditions which gave rise the the experience of Child Q and that there was a systemic response.

 

4.10 ‘Named organisations’ are those organisations which work with children predominantly in informal out of school settings (e.g. sports clubs, dance clubs). a) Is CHSCP confident that all those organisations working with children are ‘named’ are registered with them? b) Has there been any follow-up to recent audits of safeguarding practices in ‘named organisations’? c) Are there any specific areas for which the CHSCP may have concerns?

·  (JG) Under the Children’s and Social Worker Act, organisations working with children and young people are designated as ‘named’ organisations.  Local safeguarding partnerships will then ensure that these organisations complete a safeguarding self-assessment to determine the level of risks to children, and that there are appropriate safeguarding systems in place to keep children safe.  There is however, no statutory duty for these organisations to comply, and change is therefore best affected by influence and best practice rather than through enforcement.  Whilst there has been good engagement from local named agencies, there was scope for wider engagement.  There was wide variation in local practices in these organisations, with some named agencies illustrating excellent safeguarding practice, whilst others were proving difficult to engage.  CHSCP was of the view however, that if there was not greater buy-in to local safeguarding arrangement then more radical steps would need to be taken alongside partners.

 

4.11 Mobile phones and social media continue to present safeguarding risks for children and young with evidence of increased anxiety and mental health, as well as exacerbating risks. a) Can CHSCP update the Commission on work that has been undertaken locally to address these risks, particularly in relation to: work in Schools; work with parents; and children directly? 

·  (JG) Social media is not a distinct issue, it has to be treated as fundamentally part of children’s lives.  Phones are part of children’s lives, but there is a difference of opinion as to whether these should be in children’s person all the time, such as in school and other educational settings.  The focus should be on educating children to use this technology responsibly and at the right time.  There were also issues raised in relation to potential criminalisation of young people under the age of 18 and 16 in relation to certain activity on their phones.

·  (PS) The safeguarding partnership had a good programme of training and development opportunities on this important area of keeping children safe around mobile technology and social media.  This was a fast developing area which schools were having to adapt to on a daily basis.

 

4.12 The children’s service workforce across education, health and social care continue to face acute pressures -  not only in respect of the complexity of cases they are required to support - but also in the context of recruitment and retention of staff.  At its most recent meeting the Commission heard from Children’s Social Care of the acute social worker shortages which had impacted on some areas of service performance during 22/23.  The Commission noted that staffing was a safeguarding priority for 2022/23 and this year, can CHSCP update on key ongoing challenges and the local response? 

·  (JG) Pressures in Hackney are very much the same as other authorities: rising caseloads for staff, increasing complexity of cases, difficulty in retaining high quality and experienced staff and ongoing challenges in recruitment. Every public service working with children was under this same staffing pressure including health, education and social care, so it is imperative that this issue is a priority for the local safeguarding partnership.  In the absence of national investment in all aspects of the public sector, the recruitment and retention problems will remain.

·  (JB) Hackney was not alone in this challenge, as there were social work recruitment pressures across London.  There have been a number of developments to help ease these pressures, including an agreement among London authorities to stop recruiting agency social workers who have recently left a permanent position. Career progression was also recognised as a retention issue, and the children’ social care team has changed the structure to allow more internal career progression and development opportunities.  It should be noted that some agency workers were very committed to the local authority but for their own personal reasons, they did not want to be permanent members of staff. 

 

4.13 The report notes that the DfE are consulting on plans to remove Independent Commissioners from chairing local safeguarding arrangements, and for these to be chaired by one of the key partners (most likely the Director of Children's Social Care).  Can CHSCP set out the risks for this prospective development and provide further details of the consultation (when it closes) and whether a local response from CHSCP - or individual partners have been submitted?

·  (JG) The CHSCP provided a response to the Working Together 2023 consultation.  It was made clear that CHSCP opposed the specific aspect of the proposals which removed the independence of these arrangements.  However, in its response to the consultation, the government has accepted the proposal to remove the independent chair of local safeguarding arrangements and there is 11 months to implement this.  It is clear that if this is implemented that there will be an imbalance in the local safeguarding partnership, and there will be an element of partners ‘marking their own homework’. There is a need to continue to challenge the central government on this proposal but it was acknowledged that there was a limited timeframe in which to do this.

 

Agreed: That the Commission would write to the DfE setting out its concerns around the amended Working Together safeguarding children arrangements in respect of the removal of independent chair and subsequent reduced local accountability.

Supporting documents: