To report on the annual reports of the HSCB and HSAB, which address the work of multi-agency partners in Herefordshire in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, young people and vulnerable adults within the county, including achievements and areas for improvement, and priorities identified for 2016/17. 

The cabinet member for health and wellbeing thanked the independent chairs of the two safeguarding boards for their work. She stated that looking after the most vulnerable people was the most important work the council did. She noted that a great deal of good work goes on but that often it was only the failures that received notice.

The Manager of the Safeguarding Business Support Unit informed the meeting that the boards had a statutory requirement to produce annual reports for consideration by cabinet. The role of the boards was to co-ordinate the work of partner organisations involved in safeguarding and to ensure the effectiveness of this work. The business manager summarised the report and drew attention to the priorities for each board.

The cabinet member for health and wellbeing asked how Herefordshire council rated in terms of spend on safeguarding issues compared to other authorities. The director for children’s wellbeing responded that Herefordshire was in the highest spending quartile of authorities nationally.

The cabinet member for health and wellbeing asked for feedback on the national Wood review. Alan Wood, past president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, had been commissioned by the government to look at the effectiveness of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) and make recommendations about their future. The review had highlighted issues with alignment of board areas to the boundaries of the relevant public bodies and stressed that continued partnership working was crucial. It identified the health service, police and local government as key partners. The report also put forward the case for national serious case reviews. The report had made recommendations that statutory arrangements for LSCBs be replaced and guidance on how this would be taken forward was awaited from the government.

A group leader asked if there were weaknesses in systems dealing with children who went missing and how long it usually took for police to inform the council that a child had been reported missing.

The business manager responded that there were areas in which the partner organisations could do better, for example in learning lessons from cases locally and nationally. There was greater recognition that children who went missing were people at risk rather than categorising them as exhibiting bad behaviour. An example of work still to do was the improvement of debriefs of children when they had been returned and sharing of information with partner agencies to identify common factors and threats. The response to a missing child would depend on the risk assessment surrounding each individual child but the police work closely with children’s services staff.

A cabinet support member asked what the impact of budget constraints would be on the safeguarding boards.

The director for children’s wellbeing reported that there would undoubtedly be an impact but noted that the experience nationally was that those services which were not performing well were also the most expensive to run. Early intervention to prevent issues from becoming more serious was most cost effective and focussing on this aspect of work would help to address financial pressures.

The director for adults and wellbeing reported that many of the same points applied to adult’s safeguarding. He noted that a recent peer challenge review had helped to identify areas to focus on and that teams were being used more effectively. He noted improvements in the number of case reviews being completed within the year.  He also noted increased pressures, for example from changes to the interpretation by the courts of the deprivation of liberty safeguards for vulnerable individuals. There had been a tenfold increase in the number of referrals and while it was important to safeguard these individuals the additional demands were an issue of national concern.

A group leader asked if the play ‘Chelsea’s Choice’ had been made available to all schools, given the positive reaction from schools that had seen it staged.

The business manager confirmed that the play was still available and could be accessed by any school that felt it was appropriate for their pupils. He noted that the content was not suitable for all age groups.

A group leader asked if there was an issue with capacity in the voluntary and community sector as they had not been represented at all the HSCB meetings.

The business manager responded that larger agencies have greater capacity to staff the meetings but that the voluntary and community sector representatives were encouraged to attend whenever possible.

A group leader asked what dialogue took place between the two boards.

The business manager responded that there was collaboration regarding the transition of individuals from services focussing on children to services focussing on adults, when this was appropriate and that the two boards were supported by a joint business unit which aided close working. He highlighted examples of cross-over work such as continued support for individuals at risk of child sexual exploitation when they became 18 and work by the children’s board recognising that young people aged 16 or 17 can be both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence.

A group leader asked who was now responsible for the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) which had previously sat with the safeguarding board.

The business manager responded that the MASH had faced challenges, with many more people reporting concerns in the wake of national coverage of safeguarding issues. The MASH governance group is no longer a sub-group of the safeguarding board but does still submit reports to the board. The group is chaired by the assistant director safeguarding and early help.

The director for children’s wellbeing reported that the decision to move control of the MASH away from the board was taken by the board itself following an external peer review. Management of the MASH is an operational delivery issue and it was felt appropriate to move it to operational services. The board continues to review the effectiveness of the MASH in line with its scrutiny function.

A group leader asked if the commissioning of a deep dive analysis of the MASH by the board was contradictory to placing the MASH under operational services.

The director for children’s wellbeing responded that the role of the board was to scrutinise the effectiveness of all safeguarding work. As such the deep dive review fell under the remit of the board.

The chief executive stated that there had been a good discussion of the items. The safeguarding services were invisible to the majority of residents but very important for those in need of protection. The reports showed the partnership working that was taking place. The safeguarding boards were increasingly effective agents for change and the progress made was both important and encouraging. The areas for further work were noted. The council would prioritise the needs of vulnerable people ahead of the money, even in financially challenging periods. The outcome of the Ofsted/CQC inspection of the approach to children with special education needs and disabilities services was awaited but informal comments made by the inspection team were positive.

Resolved:

That:

a)    the annual reports and effectiveness of the safeguarding arrangements for children, young people and vulnerable adults in Herefordshire as assessed by the boards be noted;

b)    the strategic priorities identified by the board be used to inform future decision making by the council; and

c)    no further areas that the safeguarding boards should be focusing attention upon to provide challenge regarding the council’s functions to safeguard vulnerable groups were identified.