To provide the committee with the safeguarding children partnership’s yearly review of effectiveness for the period 2024-25

The Independent Scrutineer provided a brief overview of the report. Lead HSCP board partners from Herefordshire Council, West Mercia Police and the NHS/ICB were present to respond to questions from the committee.

1. Question: What was the Independent Scrutineer’s overall assessment of the safeguarding partnership for 2024/25?
   Response: The partnership was now unequivocally effective, with strong leadership, compliant with Working Together 2023, effective audits, and children reporting improved safety.

2. Question: How did the PEEL inspection concern affect Herefordshire?
   Response: The issue was West Mercia-wide; Herefordshire had no referral backlog. An action plan was in place and being monitored, with an inspection due December 2025.

3. Question: Why did the GP registers show more people than local population figures?
   Response: This was due to temporary registrations, slow removals, and special patient schemes; the figures were expected to balance by the next cycle.

4. Question: What were the next priorities?
   Response: The focus would be on maintaining improvement pace, data quality, embedding “Think Family” and strengthening local partnership working.

5. Question: Had the police missing persons coordinator post been filled?
   Response: The post was part of a broader restructuring due in January 2026 and was currently being covered by other officers to ensure continuity of service.

6. Question: How was accountability maintained during partner restructures?
   Response: There was strong engagement at strategic and operational levels, and partners had been proactive in sharing updates on restructures. The Executive Safeguarding group had been established at the local authority’s request to resolve cross-partner issues, and a culture of healthy challenge and support had been cultivated.

7. Question: Had independent scrutiny identified any areas of concern or best practice?
   Response: There were no current concerns. Best practice had been identified in ‘Get Safe’ child exploitation work, multi-agency audits, and transition practice between children and adult services. There was ongoing focus on capturing the lived experience of children and families and partnership response to PEEL/Ofsted findings had been robust.

8. Question: Had NHS safeguarding risks been resolved?
   Response: Risks had been resolved following internal audits. Governance had been revised and strengthened. KPIs were continuously monitored.

9. Question: How was the localities model improving frontline work?
   Response: Practitioners were now co-located, which enabled faster, more coordinated responses and strong integration with ‘Families First’ programme.

10. Question: How was ‘Think Family’ implemented across the partnership?
    Response: Think Family was embedded in the single assessment framework and families could contribute through self-assessment. Examples of cross-partner collaboration to avoid unnecessary escalation of cases and expedite support were necessary were evident. Its performance wad measured through audits, reduction in escalations, and family feedback.

11. Question: Was mediation being prioritised for parental acrimony?
    Response: Yes; a new mediation service delivered by Venture had been launched in November 2025 using £30k of Reducing Parental Conflict grant.

12. Question: How was the voice of the child captured and used to influence decisions?
    Response: Through participation strategies and engagement with schools and the youth council. A youth shadow cabinet was to be created and a ‘you said, we did’ mechanism was being formalised.

13. Question: How did police and health capture children’s voices?
    Response: The police recorded observations and health partners gathered feedback through engagement teams and forums.

14. Question: How had the “Safeguarding, Race and Racism” report influenced practice?
    Response: Audits now included cultural awareness checks, case review panels were receiving capacity building training, and a joint self-assessment was underway with Worcestershire.

15. Question: How was the partnership addressing funding reductions i.e. through joint funding?
    Response: The 2025/26 budget had been agreed jointly. Savings had been achieved collaboratively without reducing effectiveness. Joint commissioning between the council, PCC, and Public Health had been expanded.

16. Question: How was Catch22’s limited family engagement addressed?
    Response: Catch22’s work focuses on the child, but family support was being provided through early help and child in need plans.

17. Question: How was representation ensured for diverse children?
    Response: Multi-agency inclusion groups addressed these children and the collation of diverse feedback from all service areas ensured inclusive representation. Feedback from these children was shared via ‘You said, we did’ and parent co-production groups.

18. Question: How do elected members engage with the partnership?
    Response: There was scope for improved alignment between scrutiny and the partnership. Best practice had been shared across regions and there were opportunities for members to engage directly with care leavers, youth events, and schools to gather insight.

At the conclusion of the debate the committee discussed and agreed the following recommendations. That:

1. Partnership to consider explicitly reporting what partners learned from children and families and how it influenced policy and practice (you said, we did) in its annual report.