Agenda item

Joint Targeted Area Inspection of the Multi-Agency Response to Abuse and Neglect in Lincolnshire

(To receive a report by Debbie Barnes, Executive Director for Children's Services, which sets out the findings from the joint targeted area inspection of the multi-agency response to abuse and neglect in Lincolnshire)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report which set out the findings from the joint targeted area inspection of the multi-agency response to abuse and neglect in Lincolnshire.  The inspection included an in depth focus on the response to children living with domestic abuse.

 

Members were informed that the inspection took place over three weeks in October 2016, and involved 15 inspectors who were onsite for one week.  The inspection identified a number of key strengths including a clear understanding of the needs of the community, and the working relationship at a partnership level was good and effective.  Officers were pleased that the authority's direct work with children had been identified as an area of exceptional as an exceptional area of good practice.  It was reported that the inspectors had been very impressed with the children's safety plans which had been produced by the children themselves.  It was really positive for the staff to get this feedback.

 

Some key areas for improvement were also identified, such as the Police backlog with the Stop Abuse forms was a significant concern.  It was noted that there were a number of other key issues for the Police highlighted by the inspection.  The inspection also identified a need for improvement with information sharing.  It was noted by the inspection that the Council's electronic recording system (Mosaic) did not support effective practice, however officers were already aware of this and it was confirmed that the new case management system had been implemented.

 

Members of the Committee were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried whether the Council was aware of the backlog with the Police and the completion of the forms before the inspection took place.  Members were advised that officers were made aware of the backlog days before the inspection.  Assistance was offered by the Council, but in order to access the police systems staff would need to be police vetted and this process would not have been completed quickly so it was felt that the police needed to address this themselves.  Assistance had also been offered post inspection, but the Police had stated that they would be putting additional resources in place to resolve the back log.

·         In relation to the quality of risk assessments, it was noted that the authority had contacted the Police about this prior to the inspection, and suggested that an audit was carried out to give some assurance.  This offer had been reiterated following the inspection.

·         It was reported that the inspection had stated that the Police should notify school nurses and health visitors of every domestic abuse incident they attended.  However, this would be between 8,000 – 10,000 incidents per year and could overwhelm these services.  There was a need for appropriate risk assessments in order to make this manageable, but this recommendation would be considered by LSCB in the response to the inspectorates.

·         It was queried whether there was any receptiveness from the Police for taking on the Signs of Safety model for their risk assessments.  A benefit could be seen in making the schools aware, but this was one of the things that the partnership needed to work through. 

·         Members were advised that it was unclear whether there was a capacity issue with the Police, or whether it was a cultural issue, and this answer would need to come from the Police.

·         It was noted that one of the issues with Addaction was that this was a relatively new contract and not all of the policies and training had been put in place yet.  The particular operational issue was home visits to assess the storage of medication in the home where there are young children.  Addaction had not yet had the opportunity to respond. 

·         One member expressed disappointment in the report and commented that multi agency working should be a concern to everyone.  All key agencies needed to attend the meetings as they would all have different evidence of what was going on.  It was queried whether there was more the authority could do as it was responsible for safeguarding.  It was noted that the Safeguarding Children Board was the mechanism for calling agencies to account and that there was a safeguardinmg board scrutiny committee.

·         In terms of IT equipment and social workers, members were advised that practitioners' IT skills had now accelerated past what the infrastructure was capable of.  It was commented that social workers should be videoing life story work with children, or taking photos of drawings done by children, but the current system did not allow for this type of information to be gathered and recorded in this format.  The skills and confidence of staff in using IT was now greater than the capabilities of the IT systems.  One member commented that it was likely that officers would get member support for requests to upgrade the system to allow this information to be recorded.

·         Concerns were raised in relation to information sharing as in some instances it was difficult to get information from other partners.  It seemed to depend on individuals regarding how much information was obtained from other partners.

·         Members were concerned that the Council's officers were spending a lot of time chasing others for information.

·         It was commented that people from different agencies would adopt a state of passiveness within a multi-agency meeting and did not tend to take the lead, and would wait to be asked to speak rather than volunteering information.  It was acknowledged that generally the social worker was looked at to lead the discussion about risk, and then everyone would agree with the social worker.  However, in child protection conferences when Signs of Safety were used, it was more likely that the parent would speak first and the social worker last.

·         It was noted that the current IT equipment and system did not support applications such as Skype.  It was suggested that the IT strategy may be something that needed to be looked at with members.

·         Concerns were expressed by members that people were able to log into the system to view their records and amend it.  However, members were advised that there would be a 'footprint' in the system and it would be possible to see if a record had been amended and who had amended it.  It was noted that other agencies were not able to access the information.  However, it was acknowledged that the system could be improved.

·         It was noted that there were other legal orders which could be used, even when the victim did not want to make a statement.  Social workers should be challenging police to utilise these other orders, particularly where there are children present.

·         Members were advised that district councils were a key partner, as they were the housing authority, lead for anti-social behaviour, and key participants in community safety partnerships.

·         It was commented that the Police were commonly in and out of schools so it should not be difficult for the Police to involve the school.

·         It was felt by members that there was a need for a little bit of passion from everybody, at every level when it came to safeguarding to make sure that something was being done.  It was suggested that a lot of people were scared of 'safeguarding' and there was a need to normalise asking questions when a school thought there could be safeguarding concerns with a child.  At the next leadership conference with head teachers, how to give confidence back to the work force to have these sorts of conversations would be covered.  There would also be a wider roll out of Signs of Safety.

·         If social workers had appropriate caseloads, then this helped to create a system which was safe.

·         Members were informed that at any one time there were approximately 151,000 under 19 year olds in the county.  Of these, around 600 of these were Looked After Children and 350 child protection cases (circa).  It was noted that in terms of Looked After Children, Lincolnshire had significantly lower numbers than its statistical neighbours.

·         It was noted that whilst the numbers were comparatively small, there were still incredibly complex cases.  The easiest cases were those children adopted at a young age in to a different environment.  However, Lincolnshire was increasingly seeing late entrance into care, where children had been successfully parented until age 12/13 and then they start engaging in risk taking behaviours; have substance misuse problems; mental health issues etc. and parents struggled to meet their needs.

·         It was commented that the voice of the child was powerful and could help parents to understand impact of their behaviour on the child's life.

·         It was suggested that the age of some of the staff attending the multi-agency meetings could have an effect, as they were younger, they may not have the confidence to speak up.  Elected members could have a role in helping to build confidence about the importance of sharing information.

·         It was queried whether the culture of compensation was stopping agencies from doing the work they should be doing due to fear of being accused of doing something wrong.  It was acknowledged that social workers could have a difficult time, and could often have aggression directed at them from a variety of sources (including the internet).  However, staff did feel supported by management and it was not thought that this affected their decision making.

·         In terms of next steps, it was reported that the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Boards Scrutiny Sub Group had met on 11 January 2017 and had considered this report.  The action plan would be shared, but it had not yet been signed off by partners.  The Sub Group would keep track of all the actions for all agencies.

·         It was queried whether there could be an update on the implementation of the action plan so far at the Committee's next meeting.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the comments made in relation to the findings from the joint targeted area inspection of the multi-agency response to abuse and neglect in Lincolnshire be noted.

2.    That an update on the action plan be brought to the next meeting of this Committee on 10 March 2017.

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: