To provide the outcome of the review (including lessons learned) into cases of peer on peer abuse referred to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).

 

The committee considered a report by the assistant director education, development and skills (ADED&S) which provided the outcomes of the review of peer on peer abuse cases. The ADED&S introduced the report and raised the points below:

 

·         The report was originally requested around the previous Christmas and initially shared with the committee in June. That report had been interpreted wrongly as a brief statistical analysis over a defined time period and there was an apology to the committee and families for this mistake.

·         The timeframe for the review was precisely prescribed and details were drawn from Mosaic for an analysis of cases from two distinct periods of time. The timeframes were January 2017 – October 2018 and November 2018 – November 2019 which were selected to reflect changes in national guidance around peer on peer sexual abuse during those periods. Over 300 cases were analysed for the time periods resulting in 28 cases concerning peer on peer abuse.

·         There were apologies for the delay to the presentation of the report which was partially due to the flooding earlier in the year and the covid-19 pandemic but also the misjudged report taken to the meeting in June.

·         The report proposed 11 recommendations which exceeded the terms of reference of the report but were intended as next steps for the council. The recommendations were an outcome of the findings and research undertaken to write the second report.

·         There was also a section in the report outlining what the council has done as a consequence of the review and what could have been done differently.

·         The report covers the cases from Mosaic from the defined periods and it is acknowledged that some of the record keeping from the earlier stages of the review period was incomplete or imperfect. There has been an improvement in recording since this time.

·         Schools were contacted to ask what they did or didn’t do in respect of cases.

·         No families or children were contacted as part of the review.

·         The report sought to avoid causing harm or identifying any individuals involved in cases which was a challenge when outlining cases with specific and complex details in the published appendices.

·         The seriousness and severity of the impact of the issue on families was understood and it is regarded as a high priority. The report was complete but the recommendations were proposed and yet to be finalised.

 

The Leader of the Council explained that following the scrutiny committee on 25 November 2019 he had a conversation with a member of the public concerning what assurances the council could provide over its handling of peer on peer abuse cases. The Leader felt that assurance could not be provided without an investigation of historic cases and therefore commissioned the review; other approaches to understanding peer on peer abuse cases or seeking assurance may not have included a review of cases but the logic of this was not understood.

 

The Chairperson of the committee explained that the peer on peer abuse in schools spotlight review had taken place in December 2019 and was grateful that the Leader had commissioned the review to enable a recommendation that the scrutiny committee review the report once complete.

 

The Chairperson of the committee explained that the role of the scrutiny committee was to be a critical friend, to generate shared learning, to ask questions, to challenge officers and portfolio holders on behalf of elected members and members of the public. The committee was unable to undertake its role effectively if it was not provided with all relevant information to do so. A point of learning from the process around the scrutiny of peer on peer abuse had been that good scrutiny was not possible if there was not ease of access to relevant information. The committee initiated work on the peer on peer abuse topic a year previously and anger was expressed that it had been difficult to receive some elements of the report currently in front of the committee. It had been felt that the spotlight review would have provided the opportunity to allay the fears of members of the public and provide assurance that schools would know what to do when dealing with a case of peer on peer abuse. The report demonstrates that this assurance still cannot be provided. The Chairperson was angry that she had been told that certain documents could not be shared as they were not in the ownership of the council which undermined the work of the committee and spotlight review. The Chairperson reflected if the committee and if she were curious enough during consideration of the topic but it was not possible to be aware of information that had not been shared with the committee. There was a need for a greater level of trust in scrutiny and the process.

 

The Chairperson explained that some of the responses that members may receive to questions might not be as full or comprehensive as they might expect which was a consequence of changes to individuals in roles at the council therefore it would be difficult to account for some of the decisions and actions outlined in the report.

 

The Chairperson explained that two of the public questions to the meeting required consideration by the committee.

 

The committee raised the comments below concerning the public questions:

 

Ms Trumper’s question

 

·         The use of the term ‘unhelpful’ to describe the decision to not share the CSO report was felt to be dismissive language. It was not acceptable; anonymity could be preserved in such situations without the use of such language. It was queried whether schools currently have access to risk assessments and assurance was sought that schools were aware of their responsibilities. The ADED&S explained that the use of the word unhelpful had not been intended to be dismissive. In regard of schools awareness of their responsibilities the report provided detail of the actions undertaken since the issue was raised including changes to Mosaic, training events, designated safeguarding leads training events, attempts to influence the national picture and the appointment of an education safeguarding officer. Ofsted had recognised the progress made in December 2019 including the issuing of two toolkits. Policy changes had been undertaken and further changes were imminent from the education safeguarding officer. Policies were being updated to take account of new national guidance over the summer. A number of audits were examining recording on Mosaic. It was felt that as a consequence of all this work schools were well prepared to start the new school year but it was acknowledged that this did not mean that the guidance was complete. There was now an intention to issue a model policy, which had been developed after contact with other local authorities. All schools were expected to adopt the policy or explain the reasons why if they choose not to adopt model policy. It was felt that the evidence from schools during the spotlight review indicated that practices were much stronger but it was acknowledged that more work needed to be undertaken.

·         The language used in the report did not adequately describe the decision to not share the CSO report. It was recognised that progress had been made but the review was an opportunity to assess if learning had taken place and if practices had changed as a result which reflected that the council was an organisation which could apply lessons learned. It was not possible to make this assessment from the report. A problem encountered with work around the issue has been a risk aversion to anonymity and confidentiality; it was not understood why the use of the word ‘unhelpful’ needed to be used to protect anonymity. It was not understood why it was not possible to share learning around the Human Rights case which should be included in the review and it was not understood why the learning from the CSO report could not be shared. Anonymity was not felt to be an impediment to sharing these details. The ADED&S explained that in terms of anonymity language was sought which did not identify individual cases. There was uncertainty concerning the issues that were raised with the word; it was felt to make clear that to not share the recommendations in the CSO report was unhelpful and it would have been better to have shared the recommendations at the time. The decision was taken not to share it at the time and developments in expertise and guidance in the area had occurred. He apologised if the wording was not felt to be correct but it was not intended to hide anything but demonstrate that it should have been shared.

·         It was noted that the report was commissioned in April 2017 at which time there was no national guidance. The lack of national guidance was made clear at the spotlight review. It was also explained that national guidance did not come out until December 2017, therefore there was a period of 8 months where there was no national guidance other than normal safeguarding guidance to schools. A decision was taken not to share the recommendations from the CSO report which were good recommendations at the time and better than no guidance. One reason provided for not sharing the recommendations was that they were not sufficiently robust but this was not understood. It was felt that the recommendations and risk assessment could have been issued at the time it was completed as a temporary measure until an alternative policy and guidance was in place. The CSO report recommends that the council should produce a policy and three years following its completion the report currently before the committee contains a recommendation to introduce a policy. It was not understood why the recommendations were not felt appropriate when there was no policy. This was compounded afterwards at the spotlight review where no mention was made that the CSO report had been completed with recommendations and a template risk assessment. The reasons for not providing the report had been that it was not in the ownership of the council and that the recommendations were not sufficiently robust. Neither was accepted as a compelling reason for the report not to be circulated. The DCF explained he was sorry if the members felt that they had been placed into a difficult position regarding the spotlight review. The information about the 2017 report was provided in verbal briefings and the council should have done more and issued it at that time. There were other risk assessment tools around but it was recognised that the council should have been stronger and clearer in terms of what was issued and the written guidance on policy at that time. The council did undertake briefings and it was regularly on the agenda of primary and secondary heads and Chairs of Governors meetings over a number of years but it was acknowledged that written guidance should also have been provided.

·         An explanation was requested why it was difficult for scrutiny to receive a redacted copy of the CSO report. The council needed to recognise the importance of scrutiny. The head of legal services committed to providing an answer to the query raised.     

 

The Leader of the Council was aware that one of the reasons that the CSO report was not circulated was that it did not belong to the council which was felt to be an extraordinary claim. The council was supposed to act in the best interest of the child and to support this focus the council should have shared the information in its possession. It was requested that the head of legal services investigates why the justification that the report was not owned by the council was felt to be an appropriate reason to not circulate the document. It was hoped that now the best interests of the child would inform the actions of the council.

 

Mrs Burn’s question

 

·         It was important that all relevant information was considered as part of the review. The Human Rights Act case was raised and why mention of it was not included in the review of cases. It was understood that the Human Rights Act case fed into the department for education guidance and would appear crucial therefore it was queried why it was omitted from the report. The ADED&S explained that the case was referenced in the report. The report did not consider the case in detail as it was not required under the terms of reference of the review. It was not omitted nor was there an attempt to hide any information but the information had only been available recently. The head of legal services explained that there was a case involving a Herefordshire school which was issued against the school not the local authority. There was not a determination by a court made in respect of the claims issued against the school.

·         It was acknowledged that a lot of information had become known recently but reassurance was sought that schools now have been briefed on the Human Rights Act case and how it informed the enhanced guidelines. The ADED&S explained that he was confident it had but that the case pre-dated his time at the council. He attended training and briefing sessions ahead of Christmas 2019 including a conference in November attended by all schools which was led by a national expert who referenced Human Rights legislation and the Equality Act in relation to peer on peer abuse.          

 

The points below were raised in the debate of the report of the review:

 

·         Assurance was requested that schools had been checked to ensure that policies and risk assessments were in place and this had not been lost in work around the covid-19 pandemic. The ADED&S explained that this not been undertaken specifically regarding peer on peer abuse polices but it was included in all schools risk assessment activity generally. All schools risk assessments had been examined recently including a generic risk assessment issued with health and safety advice and guidance which included safeguarding elements. This was not specifically an inspection of peer on peer abuse policies and risk assessments but this would be undertaken in the future.

·         The process of reconciliation was raised and it was queried if there had been any progress with the initiative. The ADED&S explained that the process of reconciliation was included in the recommendations and had been the subject of a number of discussions. It was felt important to involve families affected who have expertise to contribute to its development and help shape the process. A process would also have to vary due to range of different cases and the level of engagement some families would want. Provisional ideas existed for the process but there needed to be consultation with families to develop the proposal. The recommendation for the process of reconciliation was felt to be a very important recommendation upon which other recommendations were dependent.    

·         It was not acceptable to use phrases such as ‘we are confident that schools will adopt’ in reference to the model policy. The council must know which schools would be adopting the policy. There needed to be an understanding why those schools who did not adopt the model policy were superseding the council’s document and if they had a better policy the council should seek to secure it to strengthen the model policy. The ADED&S explained that the model policy will be issued and it would be known which schools were adopting it. If schools did not adopt the policy they would be asked to explain why not which would happen by December 2020.

·         There was frustration that the report did not give the answers to the questions and concerns that had been expressed to the committee by members of the public. It was felt that whilst the report provided an honest account of the cases from the review period it did not capture some of the feedback from the spotlight review and the questions received by the committee from members of the public. The report also highlighted how in many cases there was no further action taken which suggested that there were a lot more cases that were not known about and the issue as a whole was not widely understood. Such elements accounted for the frustration with the report.

·         It was queried whether the school referred to under paragraph 2.26 (h) of the report was visited again. The ADED&S explained that the visit did happen and the school had been acting appropriately but it had not been properly recorded.

·         The lack of national comparative data mentioned in 2.27 (h) of the report was raised as evidence that the issue was not fully understood and what progress had been achieved to promote the compilation data. Without this data it was not felt that a report could be written to respond to the frustrations of people who do not believe the issue was being adequately addressed. The ADED&S confirmed that the national data that was available was not strong but that comparative data had been found at some partner agencies such as the West Mercia rape and sexual abuse support centre (WMRSASC). Part of the recommendations was to work with Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE) to improve the availability of comparative data. Some data had been found in a University of Bedfordshire report, Beyond Referrals. The council had completed a lot of learning in the last two years and was in a good position to help Ofsted and the DfE.

·         The enhancement to the induction process in recommendation (h) was supported and it was queried if it would be in place by the end of September 2020. The ADED&S explained that this could be achieved by the end of September.

·         It was queried whether the annual audit in 2.29 (b) of the report was sufficiently frequent. The ADED&S confirmed that the audits could be more frequent than the annual audit of school safeguarding policies. Quarterly audits of the information on Mosaic were undertaken.

·         The outline risk assessment and model policy were raised and the importance of a quality assurance process. The ADED&S explained that the new education safeguarding officer would undertake this work which would be starting very shortly.

·         An update on the reconciliation process proposed in recommendation (k) was also requested and it was felt important that there should be two stage process. A short term reconciliation process for people asking questions and a longer term process for comprehensive engagement with families and children consistent with the suggestion of the ADED&S. The ADED&S explained that it was likely that there would be a number of different models emerging which would be applicable to different cases.

·         There was a recognition of the impact on families and sympathy was expressed for their suffering.

·         A model policy which provided a single form of guidance was welcomed in place of briefings, powerpoint slides and training. A document which set out what actions a school should take in response to a case of peer on peer abuse had been requested but none had been forthcoming. The head of legal services explained that if members are refused access to information they should raise the matter with the monitoring officer directly. In future the head of legal services would ensure that she was present at all meetings or the head of children’s legal to raise issues with legal officers.   

·         There was some confusion between recommendations (b) and (j) and what constituted policy and what was considered guidance. It was understood that policies were the responsibility of the schools; the council could provide a model policy but it was the decision of the school to decide what policies they adopt. It was commented that the council should be providing county-specific guidance which provides a flowchart concerning actions to be taken where live cases could be mapped and monitored. The flowchart should contain reference to local organisations. The ADED&S explained that recommendation (j) to issue guidance and policy was being progressed. If schools chose not to adopt the council’s model policy then it should be made clear to them what their policy should contain. A flowchart had already be provided to schools and the audit work contains a question on its use. One of the recommendation concerned the council giving consideration to working with other agencies and resourcing them accordingly; WMRSASC was an example of such an agency with a lot of expertise the council could utilise, together with a comparative dataset.    

·         The flowchart concerning how schools respond to a report of peer on peer abuse was supported but it could be enhanced with yes and no actions and to make actions in the flowchart accountable to individuals and set timelines. The flow chart should also be regularly tested using scenarios to determine it was fit for purpose. It was essential that there was a consistency of response across all schools in Herefordshire to cases of peer on peer abuse. It was critical that better accountability for actions and timelines were included in documents to ensure efficient and effective responses to reports. The ADED&S agreed that the flow chart could be improved with contacts, timelines and yes/no actions. The importance of consistency across schools was acknowledged which would be monitored by the education safeguarding office. One of the recommendations concerned a schools network of support to ensure schools were aware of what actions were required and when.

·         It was recognised that not all cases of peer on peer abuse would be reported to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub and psychological and emotional harm could prevent some victims from reporting abuse. The statement in paragraph 1.3 of the report that stated ‘no children were put or left at risk’ was queried. It was accepted that it might be possible to make this statement in respect of physical risk but in terms of psychological or emotional risk it was not credible. Psychological and emotional problems were likely to result from sexual abuse which would not necessarily be known or recorded on Mosaic. Psychological and emotional risk to children could not be accurately assessed therefore the statement could not accurately state that no children were put or left at risk. The committee did not agree or accept the finding that no children were put at or left at risk. The ADED&S explained that the statement was in respect of the 28 historical cases where there was no evidence that children were put or left at risk. The emotional and psychological risk was acknowledged. The ADED&S explained that the Beyond Referrals report contended that around half incidents of peer on peer abuse are not disclosed.  

·         The national guidelines around separation of pupils in cases of peer on peer abuse was raised and the advice that separation continued for as long as possible. This advice was felt to be vague and subjective. The ADED&S explained that the advice was contained in the national guidance and it was weak.

·         The lack of recording of information on Mosaic was raised and the problem of accessing detail for the earlier period of cases in the review. A problem with recording was an issue throughout children’s services and although it had improved significantly there was still further improvement necessary. The current review highlighted the importance of ensuring complete and accurate records. The DCF explained that there was ongoing work in the improvement plan to improve recording including use of technology. It was acknowledged that in earlier years there had been cases where there had been poor recording and it was a longstanding issue. Improvements were evidenced by regular audits and it continued to be a focus for the service. The ADS&FS explained that in some cases there was not a referral to MASH and in such incidents there would not be any recording on Mosaic; schools did not use the system it was only used by social care. There had been significant audit work including multi-agency work in MASH and officers were asked to record decisions by MASH and the reasons for those decisions. Essex CC would undertake a review of the quality of the work in MASH including the recording. The ADCSQ&I explained that recording was an issue in a number of local authority areas; recording needed to be proportionate and purposeful and should tell the story of a case and the key decisions taken. Improvements were being made and Otter was a new reporting tool that was being used.

·         The role of the committee in the future in respect of peer on peer abuse cases was raised. It was felt that it should maintain an oversight through performance reporting and through performance challenge sessions where data around the number of cases was presented. It was proposed that the committee maintains a watching brief. Any concerns over reporting rates would prompt a report to the committee to explain the trend.        

·         The committee were content that the recommendations emerging from the review were considered by cabinet as set out in the report and that the timelines were finalised. The ADED&S explained that some of the timelines concerned recommendations that were beyond the control of the Council such as influencing Ofsted and DfE  

·         The cases that were still open in the report were queried. It was asked if they were following improved processes and if resolution would occur in a satisfactory and timely manner. The ADED&S explained that he was confident of the progress of cases but not all were under the control of the council. Some cases required a decision by the police which was currently awaited. This was an issue for the council as to how it could expedite cases that were beyond its control and national guidance did not set out timelines within which cases should be progressed.

·         The impact of peer on peer abuse on children and their families was understood and a structured response plan for engaging with families was required and support for children and young people beyond the incident.

·         Thanks were expressed to members of the public and their persistence in raising questions and concerns. Thanks were also provided to the Leader for commissioning the report which had begun to uncover details and issues concerning the historic handling of the issue. It was emphasised that the committee needed information in order to undertake effective scrutiny and this information had not always been available. Throughout the period that the topic had been under consideration by the committee wider questions about how children’s services had worked in the past and the culture of the service had been raised. The ADED&S explained that the cases should not be treated as incidents but as a wider issue about the culture of safeguarding in the council.

·         A summary at the end of the report to explain the scrutiny committees’ recommendations was proposed and a recognition that this was the start of understanding the issue. It should be explained that more data gathering was required and that new guidance and protocols were being developed. Further it should be acknowledged that there were still a number of elements that were not known about peer on peer abuse and that the recommendations and new processes being put in place were an attempt to address the problem.

·         The committee was content that the details in the two public questions had been addressed.

 

The cabinet member children and families acknowledged the value of the report and that it had been a worthwhile process to understand the issue. The role of the families concerned was emphasised and their contribution was recognised and praised. They had helped to ensure that a thorough review was conducted resulting in proposals for improvements. It was recognised that there was still much that the council was not aware of which should prompt consideration of the culture that surrounds such issues. Preventative work should be promoted such as sex and relationship education which should help to create a different culture. The appointment of the education safeguarding officer was a positive step to progress the work in the recommendations of the review including the model policy. The proposal for a reconciliation process was also encouraging to engage with families and learn from their experience.

 

The DCF thanked the families who had contributed to promoting a deeper understanding of the issue. The committee would be supported to undertake its work and to function effectively.

 

The ADS&FS drew attention to the work commissioned by the NSPCC and the need to find relevant services to provide support following a case of peer on peer abuse. The impact on a victim might persist into adulthood and the commissioning of appropriate support services needed to be considered. There was also the need to think about services for perpetrators in order to alter the behaviour of an individual who had abused their peer. 

 

The Leader explained that work with the perpetrator was undertaken by WMRSASC. Peer on peer abuse was a broader societal issue and which was evidenced by the very poor prosecution figures; the council would undertake any work it could to address cultural issues which impacted on the problem.

 

Councillor Carole Gandy proposed and Councillor Phillip Howells seconded the recommendations of the committee which were approved unanimously.

 

That the committee:

 

·         Calls on the executive to consider the recommendations of the committee during its finalisation of the Peer on Peer Review Herefordshire MASH 2017 - 2019 report;

 

·         Recommends that the report is strengthened to provide an explanation as to why the CSO report of April 2017 was not circulated to schools prior to the commencement of the summer term in 2017 together with the risk assessment template. An explanation as to why it was not shared or mentioned at the peer on peer abuse in schools spotlight review is also required. The use of the term ‘unhelpful’, to describe the decision to not share the report, should be reconsidered and a stronger term adopted;

 

·         Recognises that risk posed to victims of peer on peer abuse is not merely physical but also emotional and psychological. In light of the handling of some cases detailed in the review report the committee recommends that there is a reassessment of the finding in the review that no children were put or left at risk;

 

·         Retains a watching brief, through the quarterly performance report, on the reporting rates of peer on peer abuse and the performance of the council in response to reported cases. This progress will be monitored at meetings of the children and families performance challenge. Any concerns with reporting rates or the performance of the council will prompt a report to the following meeting of the committee to explain concerning trends;

 

·         Recommends that the Response to Reports flowchart for Herefordshire schools(appendix 1 of the review report) is enhanced with yes and no actions and is regularly scenario-tested with schools by the council. The flowchart should incorporate details of individuals accountable for actions and timelines for the completion of actions;

 

·         Recommends that schools that do not implement the model policy are held to account for the decision not to implement. Schools should be encouraged to share any policy which they feel supersedes or is superior to the model policy produced by the council; 

 

·         Recommends that when consideration is given to the process of reconciliation there should be an assessment of long and short term processes to provide a variable response tailored to needs of children and families affected by peer on peer abuse. A longer term process would provide for comprehensive engagement with children and families who required and requested this level of reconciliation. A shorter term process would provide for those children and families who did not want or did not need to engage with the longer term approach

 

·         Recommends that a comprehensive plan of help and support for victims of peer on peer abuse and their families is developed by the council. This should include detail of what ongoing mental health support for children and families would be available.

 

·         Recommends that clarification is provided in the report around the distinction between policy and guidance. There should be an explanation of who was responsible for: providing peer on peer abuse policies for use in Herefordshire schools; the adoption of such policies; the production of guidance; and the sharing of new guidance.

 

·         Recommends that the timelines in the recommendations in the review report should be finalised and include the title of those officers responsible for actions.

 

·         Recommends that a summary is provided at the foot of the review report detailing the scrutiny committee’s recommendations and providing a recognition that the report was the start of a process to understand and address peer on peer abuse in Herefordshire. The summary should explain that not all elements of peer on peer abuse were understood and that improved data gathering, new guidance and new processes were being developed to attempt to come to terms with and address the issue.