Agenda item

5.1   The Committee asked at its previous meeting for the Local Safeguarding

Children Board (LSCB) to report back on the outcomes from the Serious Case Reviews it had most recently completed.  Councillor Field introduced the report by clarifying it was not the role of the Committee to revisit the subject matter of the reviews.  Instead the Committee’s role was to focus on and consider the recommendations and learning identified in the report.

5.2       The Director of Children’s Services agreed to provide on an annual basis a report to the Committee on the LSCB’s serious case reviews.  The Director also agreed that amendments to the format of future serious case review reports would be considered in the light of the Committee’s comments.

5.3       The Director then highlighted the LSCB’s role in holding all relevant agencies to account for their learning from serious case reviews; that similarly each individual agency has its own governance structure in terms of looking at learning and actions and that the role of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee is an important part of that process.   Despite the publicity the cases considered by the review process had generated, officers were still duty bound to maintain the confidentially of the relevant parties at all times. 

5.4       The key responsibilities of the LSCB with regard to serious case reviews, the processes it must follow and the constraints the Board operate under when publishing reports were then summarized by Reg Hooke, Chair of the LSCB.   These points included:

·         that it is a statutory duty of the LSCB to conduct a serious case review where a child has either died or has been seriously injured and it is suspected there has been abuse or neglect;

·         the East Sussex Safeguarding Board has a case review sub group, of which serious case reviews form a small part of the workload.   It is via this sub-group that recommendations are made to the Chair of the LSCB as to whether a serious case review should take place. All cases, whether single or multi agency are considered; and

·         whilst recent serious case reviews have been published, a fundamental responsibility of the Board is to determine the content of any published report.   The Board have a duty to ensure that any published reports do not contain information which may identify individuals.   Reports are also not published until the full serious case review and the LCSB scrutiny role have been completed.   

5.5       Douglas Sinclair, Head of Children's Safeguards & Quality Assurance then took the Committee through a presentation on the two serious case reviews that were before them. Details of these cases, learnings and recommendations are contained within the report.  

Comments and Questions

5.6    The Committee welcomed the report and the opportunity to comment on the learning and recommendations.   A central issue for the Committee was whether it had been provided with sufficient information to enable it to perform its scrutiny role effectively.  For example, the Committee wanted more specific information about the uptake and proper implementation of individual recommendations by schools.   Clarification was also sought about the mechanism via which this work was double-checked by the LSCB.  The Committee also felt it was not clear how the learning from serious cases reviews was widely shared with other agencies.   A number of committee members also considered that some of the recommendations did not provide clear targets which they could use to properly assess their effectiveness and levels of implementation. 

5.7 In response to these comments and a number of other queries regarding the wording of specific recommendations, the Chair of the LCSB and the Head of Safeguarding provided further detail about the processes followed by the Board when monitoring recommendations and the information they ask for, a summary of which is provided below:

·         After a serious case review is completed an inter-agency action plan is put in place which is then monitored and scrutinized by the LSCB.   In addition to the highlights and key learnings, all agencies complete internal management reviews and make further recommendations for their own organisations to address.   All these recommendations are monitored by the Board and the resultant action plan is brought back to the Board on a regular basis for update and completion.

·         Ensuring recommendations are implemented is an ongoing challenge for the Board.  There are a large number of schools in the county, all of who face a range of competing demands.  A key goal for the Board is to ensure all schools make safeguarding a high priority - as high a priority to the school as academic achievement. 

·         Even when the Board sign off an Action Plan, as in the case with Child G, there is an ongoing process of monitoring and learning.  This is achieved via a safeguarding tool known as a Section 175 audit which schools are expected to complete and return to the Local Authority (Section 175 of the Education Act 2002 requires governing bodies of maintained schools and further education colleges to make arrangements to ensure their functions are carried out with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children).  The audit is then analysed.   A range of briefings for school heads and Governors and for Designated Child Protection teachers are also provided.   

·         The Board would not sign off any action plan until it was satisfied that its recommendations had been fully embedded within a specific agency/school/organisation.  The Committee were also reminded that Councillor Tidy attends meetings of the LSCB on behalf of the Council.    In response to queries about the level of detail in the reports, the Chair of the LSCB also undertook where possible to provide further information at the appropriate time which the Committee could then use to scrutinize further.

5.8     It was confirmed that a section 175 audit is not completed by all schools.   There is no statutory requirement for schools to complete one, although guidance says schools should.   All schools in the area, including independent ones, are written to requesting completion of this audit.  The Chair of the LSCB also informed the Committee that compliance with audits at all schools is a priority for the coming 3 year period.    The Director of Children’s Services also sought to reassure the Committee that following on from the last school’s audit, the Department took the opportunity to highlight to all schools that completing the audit was an easy and effective way to demonstrate to Ofsted compliance with the requirements on safeguarding children.

5.9     The Director of Children’s Services also highlighted to the Committee that it was important to recognise the independence of the Chair of the LSCB and his impartial role in holding all relevant agencies to account for their safeguarding duties.    The Director also drew a distinction between action plans which relate to a specific issue and agency and the associated learning outcomes which can be more widely applied to other agencies.   With regard to the former, an individual agency will be required to report to the Board and an assessment can then be made as to whether specific recommendations have been fully implemented.   However, with regard to the learning outcomes and its application to other agencies, this represents ongoing work for the Board.     

5.10     With regard to Child G, two positive outcomes from the review were highlighted to the Committee.  The school in this case has convened an area designated child protection teacher meeting where learning is shared on a regular basis.  This practice is being adopted in other areas.    So as to help sustain the focus on schools and other educational establishments around safeguarding in the area, the Department is recruiting a school safeguarding officer and is also putting together a traded service offer for schools.  If a school subscribed to the service, it will be taken through a safeguarding practice review and be asked to complete a 175 audit.  A team will then go to the school and challenge them to provide the evidence given in the audit.   

5.11  Councillor Tidy assured the Committee that in her role as an observer on the Board she takes full part in its meetings and that the LSCB has done as much as it can to put in place the ability for different agencies to learn from serious case reviews.    

5.12     Councillor St Pierre also commented that it should be kept in mind that abuse happens not only in areas of social deprivation, but also in more affluent settings; that with regard to unexplained injuries many articulate parents are skilled at explaining away such injuries; and that one of the reasons why men are hidden is because a single mother maybe claiming benefits as a single parent.

5.13     The Committee asked for clarification about what measures were being taken to increase public awareness of safeguarding issues and were informed that a number of strategies are used to raise public awareness by East Sussex County Council and the LSCB.   National campaigns by organisations like the NSPCC were also cited.  

5.14   The Committee discussed performance indicators and Councillor Ensor asked whether there was scope for every teacher’s annual appraisal to include an element regarding safeguarding.   In response to this query the Committee were informed that a check would be undertaken to see if the 175 audit includes this requirement and if not, that it would be added. 

5.15   In response to a query about whether a better system could be put in place for tracking families, the Committee were informed that East Sussex County Council had been a pilot authority for developing a national children’s index.  However, it was decided at national level to not roll out the index across the country. 

Concluding remarks

5.16   The Chair summarised the Committee’s main focus was on how the learnings and recommendations arising from serious case reviews were being implemented and monitored and whether more could be done to provide the Committee with sufficient data and measures which would enable it to perform its scrutiny role effectively.

5.17 RESOLVED to:

1)    request an annual serious case review report to be provided to the June meeting of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee.   The report to include where appropriate more information about the measures taken to ensure recommendations are complied with.

2)    provide the Committee with data regarding which schools within the county have completed a section 175 audit.