Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director Children and Learning.

In response to the Children and Social Work Act 2017, and publication of Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018, the Camden Safeguarding Children Partnership (CSCP) replaced the Camden Safeguarding Children Board (CSCB) on 1st July 2019. The statutory guidance set out what is expected of organisations, individually and jointly, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

The three statutory safeguarding partners, who hold equal responsibility for safeguarding children in the borough, lead the work of the CSCP, and they are Camden Council, North Central London Integrated Care Board and Central North Basic Command Unit (BCU) of the London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The annual report analyses the impact of the CSCP in maintaining good governance and strategic oversight of the quality and performance of the local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Children and Learning.

The Executive Director for Children and Learning was accompanied by Dominic Clout (Independent Scrutineer), David Pennington (North Central London Integrated Care Board) and Paul Ridley (Central North Basic Command Unit of the London Metropolitan Police Service). The report covered the following areas: governance, independent scrutiny and objectives of the CSCP; assurance and overseeing the effectively of the safeguarding arrangements; emerging themes from local serious incidents and reviews; learning from national reviews; regional learning and child Q; Camden’s single front door; Early Help; child protection and abuse and neglect; Looked After Children; vulnerable adolescents and risk and exploitations; child exploitation; child trafficking and modern slavery; children going missing; youth violence and knife crime; gangs; transitional safeguarding; the Partnership’s response to safeguarding and supporting asylum seeking families; progress against the CSCP’s priorities; and the reflections and priorities for 2023-25.

The Chair thanked the Partnership for their report and invited questions and comments from the Committee. The following was discussed:

·       A Member stated that black and ethnic children were overrepresented in many key areas and asked if the reasons in the report to explain the inequality and intersectional poverty were backed with research. The Member also asked if professionals had an understanding of the lived experience of those children with an anti-racist perspective. In response, it was confirmed there was a lot of research and learning from reviews through the national panel and other channels such as the ‘What Works’ Centre, which looked at reasons for overrepresentation and outcomes for Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic (BAME) young people. It was important to recognise and understand lived experience and how that impacted families and their life chances and their ability to access support early. The Partnership was signed-up to the anti-racist approach to safeguarding practice and was committed to understand anti-racism. At Camden Council specifically, there were a range of programmes for training and a model of practice and awareness of intersectional oppression. A Member stated they would like to see benchmarks in demonstrating improvement in anti-racism and if there were any case studies demonstrating social workers understanding lived experience.

·       In relation to Child Q, a Co-opted Member asked for an update on the progress of implementing the recommendations from the review following the incident. In response, it was confirmed that Hackney CSCP referred the serious incident to the national panel. In Camden, partners spoke to teachers and completed a review of searching policies in schools. Schools said at no circumstance did they want the Police to search pupils on their premises, but there were some extremely limited cases where this could happen and Police Officers had to be given discretion where necessary. A plan had been agreed with schools and it had been assured by the Police that children should never be treated as adults.

·       A Co-opted Member noted there was a level of mistrust among minority groups in the statutory partners, and safeguarding in general, where they did not feel supported enough to discuss concerns in fear of penalisation.

·       In relation to section 5.1, emerging themes from our local serious incidents and reviews, a Member stated that children not known to social services and in elective home education (ELE) was a perpetual safeguarding challenge for local authorities. Issues arising usually routed from lack of information sharing or confidence among colleagues in raising concerns. In response, it was confirmed that the Partnership had asked colleagues to be more proactive and nuanced in speaking to families. There were restrictions in the framework in the actions that could be taken by statutory services, therefore a refreshed inquisitive approach was necessary.

·       In relation to section 7, Early Help, a Member asked for further information on the proportion of Early Help referrals which fell under Early Years and whether there was a similar trend of increase and/or disproportionality as seen in Youth Early Help referrals. It was confirmed that a written response would be provided to the Committee.

Action By - Director of Children’s Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding

·       A Member stated that the intersectional aspects of the safeguarding report did not mention LGBT+ young people and asked how they could be included in future reports, procedures and policy. In response, it was confirmed that the Partnership wanted to engage with more groups and partners in general, including LGBT+ groups. This was an area of complexity, therefore a nuanced and focussed approach was needed to focus on specific children’s needs and their context. Children’s needs were at the centre of focus and the Council would continue to work with Camden schools and Camden Learning who would continue to provide advice and support to schools. Within schools there was student voice in the community, routes to external agencies, and pastoral support. These comments would be considered in next iteration of the report.

·       In relation section 19, reflections and priorities for 2023-25, a Member asked for more information on the impact of anti-racist training, if there were any benchmarks in demonstrating improvement in anti-racism, and if there were any case studies showing that social workers understood lived experience. In response, it was stated that there was training for staff, but it was hard to see the impact if the culture of the organisation was not regularly checked. All statutory partners carried out audits on their casework and it was part of the quality assurance framework to see if practice met values. Practitioners should understand the experience of a child and there were key foundations set up to support this and the organisation had to keep a commitment to those values. Through the process, it was key to hear feedback from families and young people.

·       In response to a Member asking what specific internal work the Police was doing to increase the trust of global majority young people in the Police, it was confirmed that the Baroness Casey Review published in March 2023 was frank about the shortcomings of the Met Police culture and informed how the Met Police could make changes.  There was a plan in place and there was an improving culture transforming where staff felt able to report wrongdoing and raise issues anonymously. Also, a Diversity Equality Unit had been set up. It was confirmed that it was difficult to quantify the effects of the changes at this stage, but there had been a lot of work with staff and organisations to turn the tide, but it was acknowledged there was a lot of work outstanding. Once there were more results to present, further information on progress could be incorporated into a future report with more Camden specific outcomes.

·       The following safeguarding risks to vulnerable children were noted as newer dimensions for the CSPC to consider: digital GPs causing a further decreases in visibility of children in ELE to services; children increasingly missing from education due to the social contract between parent and school being disconnected during the pandemic; the effect on families of the cost of living crisis creating tensions in the home which could lead to neglect and abuse; and the increasing number of families in temporary accommodation being less visible and able to access services.

·       In relation to maintaining the visibility of vulnerable children who were ELE, a Member asked for further information on Camden’s systems in supporting vulnerable children in ELE and if there was any learning from external good practice. The Member stated that even in robust systems, vulnerable children could fall through the net. In response, it was confirmed that it was crucial to raise awareness and keep track of those children that were known to be vulnerable and the needs of parents. There had been work happening to review all children known to ELE and to cross-check services, and the Council would step in when safeguarding risks were identified. Colleagues were encouraged to have a proactive mindset and be professionally curious to piece together stories. Officers confirmed they would provide a written response to the Committee on further information on Camden’s systems in supporting vulnerable children in ELE, including learning from external good practice.

Action By - Director of Education Commissioning and Inclusion

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted.