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 2023, 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 CSCP is led by four statutory safeguarding partners who hold equal responsibility for safeguarding children. The statutory safeguarding partners are Camden Council, NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board (ICB), Central North Basic Command Unit of the London Metropolitan Police Service and Camden Learning (delegated safeguarding partner).

The annual report 2023-24 analyses the impact of the CSCP in maintaining good governance and strategic oversight of the quality and performance of the local multiagency safeguarding arrangements within Camden. 

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

Tim Aldridge (Executive Director Children and Learning) presented the report. Other partners in attendance were David Pennington (Director of Safeguarding, North Central London Integrated Care System), Emma Barker (Detective Superintendent, Central North Basic Command Unit), Stephen Hall (Chief Executive Officer, Camden Learning) and Robert McCulloch-Graham (Camden’s Independent Scrutineer). The report provided a strategic oversight of the quality and performance of the multiagency safeguarding efforts and an assessment of local services performance and effectiveness, highlighting areas of strength and weakness. The report also outlined how the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements were evaluated and detailed the actions being taken to enhance safeguarding practices aiming to improve outcomes for vulnerable children.

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

·       In relation to the second key question for the Committee in section 2, a Member asked what the impacts of a collaborative working culture and an open and transparent safeguarding culture were. They also asked if partners were aware if safeguarding issues decreased as a result from collaborative working. The following responses was given:

-       It was confirmed that the report demonstrated how statutory duties were being met and highlighted the importance of collaboration. However, it was noted that external drivers, such as the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, and poverty, had significantly contributed to harm in communities – which were factors beyond the partnership's control. While the partnership could not guarantee any reduction in incidents, it remained committed to better identifying, responding to, and preventing issues from worsening.

-       The importance of learning together as a partnership and understanding complex areas such as neglect was emphasised, particularly in distinguishing between families who were struggling and those unable to manage adequately.

-       Encouraging collaboration across services and fostering an environment where individuals felt confident in reporting concerns, including a willingness to challenge others and accept accountability, was also highlighted as crucial and considered vital for improving safeguarding outcomes.

-       Evidence of the partnership’s effectiveness could be observed in reviews, feedback on incidents and near misses, which helped inform future proactive responses.

-       The importance of transparency and shared values within the partnership was important and Camden’s culture of openness was evident in its meetings and responses to incidents. The complexity of safeguarding and the various external factors influencing outcomes were acknowledged, with an emphasis that, while no guarantees could be made, a lack of transparency could lead to poor practice.

-       Camden had a strong national reputation for its safeguarding culture however there was a need for continued vigilance to maintain positive relationships and community impact, given that staff and circumstances could change over time.

·       A Member noted that while the report mentioned sexual and physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect might be harder for young people to identify in their own situation, as they might not have had the necessary terminology to recognise these issues. Officers explained that the Department for Education (DfE) provided clear legal definitions of neglect, and that pan-London child protection procedures were in place. Neglect referred to children suffering significant harm from their living circumstance and their quality of care did not support them to thrive. There were different types of harm, such as parental mental health issues and domestic abuse, which often overlapped and could not be considered in isolation. Officers acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting that it had sometimes been difficult to assess the severity of a family's situation and its impact on children. Officers highlighted the importance of staff training, multi-agency discussions, and appropriate professional supervision, as well as the need for time to reflect on cases. It was emphasised that everyone had a responsibility to identify and report neglect. Teaching staff on the frontline also received messaging about support in understanding how to report concerns and ensure children had safe ways to speak up and a safe avenue to communicate with a trusted adult.

·       A Member asked what the findings from the health-related behaviour questionnaire were which led to the CSCP commissioning new training on understanding and safeguarding LGBTQ+ children and young people.

·       A Member asked for more information about the partnerships approach to intersectionality. In response it was explained that, regardless of discipline, part of professional development involved understanding the community being served. Camden was home to people from diverse backgrounds, each with intersectional identities. It was important not to make assumptions about a family's experiences or perspectives, and that professionals should work with families to understand their diverse histories to support their ability to access services. While not always straightforward, it was emphasised that addressing these issues had been a key aspect of supervision, training, and learning from case reviews, particularly when insufficient attention had been given to someone's protected characteristics. A focus on intersectionality was part of multi-agency meetings and ongoing work, including social workers learning about systemic family therapy. Across the partnership there was a challenge of supporting everyone to remain professionally curious, noting that this required continuous effort. Many individuals had only partial viewpoints of a situation, and it was important to find ways for partners to share the right and correct information to achieve better outcomes.

·       A Member highlighted that being curious and courageous seemed like a big challenge and asked how these qualities could be demonstrated in practice. The following responses were given:

-       Officers responded that from a social worker’s perspective, this area was about how well-prepared social workers were when engaging with families, especially in multi-agency discussions. It was emphasised that curiosity involved how social workers engaged with families, the building of empathy and trust, while ensuring that families understood the intent behind their questions, which should not feel prying or unhelpful. Courage was required when working with families by asking questions that may seem intrusive, and when engaging in professional conversations, particularly when there was conflict or differing opinions among disciplines. Social workers needed the courage to challenge their own understanding and to ensure they were addressing situations with the right intent.

-       It was stated that within the Metropolitan Police Services (MPS) Children’s Strategy, the Child First policy included clear objectives focused on treating the child as a priority, listening to the child’s voice, and encouraging professional curiosity. A comprehensive training programme had been established for new MPS staff to ensure consistency and expertise when interacting with children and there was now a greater emphasis on upskilling MPS officers. There had been a significant increase in the number of officers in MPS child protection teams, with minimal vacancies, and that the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) had nearly 100% of its posts filled. In response to a Member asking if the new training had impacted how officers dealt with young people in Camden, it was explained that impacts could be seen in examples of improvements in handling cases involving missing children, which had previously been flagged as a government concern. It was noted that there had been training rolled out to strengthen a higher recognition of risk for high-risk children. The latest government report on the subject was due to be published in January 2025 and positive feedback of the MPS was expected.

·       A Member asked what the difference and relation was between relational safeguarding and systemic social work. Officers explained that relational safeguarding was an approach used across partnerships, enhancing strong relationships between agencies and communities to achieve better outcomes. Trust, clear expectations, and the ability to challenge were key to creating an effective environment. Systemic practice was a set of tools within the broader approach, focusing on how to understand and hypothesise about families through a systemic family approach. This approach included direct work tools, which were particularly useful for frontline social workers. In the Council, a new Director for Relational Practice had joined in June 2024 and had published a new practice framework. The Director had already met with many practitioners in the Children and Learning directorate and were building a team of relationally trained practitioners to support the effort to apply the relational practice model coherently.

·       A Member noted that while the CSCP appeared to be cost-effective, its success relied on the involvement of partners, many of whom were also facing their own financial challenges. They asked whether this financial strain could undermine the effectiveness of the work carried out by partners. The following responses were given:

-       It was confirmed that the cost-of-living crisis had increased safeguarding concerns, and while all partners remained fully committed to safeguarding, they were being asked to do more with fewer resources.

-       An example was shared that a group of GPs in Camden who were under pressure in primary care but still prioritised safeguarding. These GPs, who were safeguarding leads, took time out of their practice to discuss safeguarding issues, focussed on asking curious questions and looking ahead to how early intervention could help. Part of supporting curiosity involved prompting professionals to ask about domestic abuse and suicide, ensuring that all systems could help keep safeguarding at the forefront.

-       It was noted that the Police Commissioner had announced that exploitation would remain a high priority for the MPS, supported by investment in safeguarding teams and public protection being protected from government cuts.

-       There was a commitment to maintain funding within the partnership, though it was acknowledged it would be affected in different ways. The Council was prioritising safeguarding, investing in strengthening the practice model, which would translate into improved practice and reduction in risk.

-       The high costs of getting things wrong in safeguarding was emphasised, as the demand for services would increase significantly if safeguarding efforts at an earlier stage failed. The importance of securing funding for prevention and early intervention was emphasised, as stopping funding would ultimately be at the peril of the services.

RESOLVED -  

THAT the Committee:

1.    Comment on and note the outcomes achieved by the CSCP set out in the 2023-24 Annual Report (Appendix 1) and the CSCP objectives set out in the Business Plan (Appendix 2)

2.    Provide feedback to the local statutory safeguarding partners for children.

3.    Note the report.