Agenda item

7.1

The Committee received the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board – Annual Report 2014-15.

7.2

Sue Fiennes, Independent Chair, Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board, introduced the report, which outlined the progress that had been made during the year, together with the key challenges ahead for the City to ensure that its children were safe from harm, abuse and neglect.  Ms Fiennes stated that 2014-15 had been a challenging and busy year for the Board, which had included the commissioning of an assessment of Child Sexual Exploitation Services in Sheffield following the publication of the Jay Report in Rotherham, which had highlighted that Sheffield had shown both best practice and resilience in this area, and had engaged directly with young people to enable their voices to influence this important area of work.  She stated that the Annual Report would also be submitted to the Health and Wellbeing Board at its meeting to be held in March 2016.

7.3

Victoria Horsefield, Safeguarding Children Board Manager, also commented that it had been a busy and challenging year as the Board had implemented the Ofsted inspection findings and responded to new and emerging safeguarding issues. She stated, however, that Sheffield was fortunate to have a strong and experienced Board, that included valuable contributions from partner agencies, which had enabled it to undertake its duties effectively.  The involvement of young people in the work of the Board had, again, been a focus, and this had included the production of an e-safety drama on the dangers of online gaming and “selfies”, and the development of z-cards and leaflets on the dangers of “scratching”.  In terms of future priorities, the Board was focussing on young people’s access to appropriate services to meet their emotional wellbeing and mental health needs, the transition for young people from children’s to adult-based services, and building on the Sheffield Neglect Strategy. 

7.4

Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·                The early intervention work by the Youth Justice Service and other partner organisations was crucial in order to reduce the number of young people entering, or re-entering, the criminal justice system in the City.  There were a number of programmes for families, including the Stronger, Safer Families Programme, which had been developed in collaboration with Multi-Agency Support Teams and Community Youth Teams, with a focus on families experiencing aggression and/or violence from their children. 

·                The Council had a strategy of implementing services and taking action at the earliest possible opportunity when issues had been identified.  The Youth Justice Service worked with those children and young people who had shown signs of entering the justice system, as well as those already in the system.  The Youth Justice Board regularly received and considered reports regarding these children and young people.

·                The Safeguarding Board advice line was under review to ensure that practitioners in the City received consistent, timely and appropriate safeguarding advice. The Board would seek assurance that any changes did not lead to a reduction in the quality of advice provided. Initiatives during the year and going forward included the establishment of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, a locality based service, where specific safeguarding issues would be identified.

·                During 2014/15, there was a reduction seen in the number of children subject to Child Protection Plans, but emotional abuse remained the highest category in Sheffield. This was due to the recognition of the impact of domestic abuse on the emotional health and wellbeing of children.

·                There was a need for additional support in terms of the provision of advisers to work with children and young people who displayed, or were likely to develop, sexually harmful behaviour, providing them with help and intervention at the earliest possible opportunity.  The figures in terms of Child Protection Plans in the City were lower than the national average, but the Board would continue to monitor the position very carefully.

·                Due to effective partnership working, the Board does become aware of any emerging safeguarding risks and issues in the City, which were then dealt with in the most appropriate manner.  One example of this was the partnership working between the Board’s Licensing Manager, Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Health Protection agencies. Examples of this include the tackling of Novel Psychoactive Substances in the City and the identification of risks of young people visiting shisha bars.

·                It was accepted that further information could have been included in the section of the report on Looked After Children and Adoption, and there were plans to build on the detail in the report year on year.  A link would be included into this Annual Report to the Corporate Parenting Annual Report.

·                One of the identified priorities involved the transition with regard to young people aged 16/17, who had previously been under the care of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS). This had now been addressed to the extent that CAMHS now looked after young people up to the age of 18.  Work was also being undertaken to build up Tier 2 services in schools, and there were a number of different projects regarding safeguarding issues in schools at the present time.  CAMHS had also secured ‘Future in Mind’ funding, which would be used to provide additional resource to help reduce waiting times.

·                The investigations into illegal tattooing (‘scratching’) involved mainly soft intelligence gathering, such as from schools.  The process, which mainly involved adults tattooing young people, using equipment that was readily available on the internet, but led to increased exposure to further safeguarding risks to vulnerable young people, had led to action being taken.

·                Whilst the Board was reasonably confident that the number of major safeguarding issues was kept to a minimum in the City, which, it considered was as a result of good data-gathering and information-sharing between partner organisations, it accepted that there was no room for complacency.  The key was how information was received, what weight was given to it and how it was acted on.  It was accepted that, in some instances, there was a need for improvement in terms of how information was acted on.  A recent audit had found that the Board was doing most things right.

·                A Task and Finish Group had been established to look at the issues of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), comprising representatives of a number of agencies and community groups.  Training events had been held, particularly aimed at offering safeguarding training to harder to reach community groups to raise aware of FGM, along with other safeguarding issues.

·                Work had been undertaken by the Safeguarding Children Board’s Licensing Manager to develop guidelines in connection with licensed premises, such as saunas and massage parlours.  As part of its enforcement work, officers in the Licensing Service do undertake spot checks of such premises in order to monitor the age of people working there.  It was very difficult to monitor the ages of people attending such premises, although action would obviously be taken if children or young people were seen visiting, as part of the enforcement visits.

·                Whilst there was not a specific secure room at Aldine House, staff were required to follow strict guidelines when restraining young people at the establishment.  Restraint was considered only as a last resort, and the minimisation of restraint began with a thorough recruitment and vetting process for staff, followed up with training and development.  In the event of a young person being restrained, they would be taken to a suitable room, and supervised accordingly. 

·                It was accepted that the number of referrals in terms of transfers to the social care system had risen by 13%, but this figure was still lower than the national average.

·                The number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETS) in the City was historically at its lowest figure.  However, there were some areas of the City where the figures were higher than the national average, and such areas were targeted by the provision of additional youth services. 

·                The MsUnderstood Programme was a partnership between the University of Bedfordshire, Imkaan and the Girls Against Gangs Project, and involved a three-year programme of work addressing peer-on-peer abuse, including teenage relationship violence, peer-on-peer exploitation and serious youth violence.  Sheffield had been one of the three chosen sites across the country, and was now in the second year of the programme delivery.

·                The Board could consider looking at the possibility of webcasting their lunchtime seminars to enable a larger group of people to access them.

·                The Corner, Sheffield’s young people’s substance misuse service, had a website which provided information and assistance, for use by parents and young children, in connection with all aspects of substance misuse.

7.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2014-15 now submitted, together with the information now reported and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)       thanks the Chair of the Board and officers for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised; and

(c)        requests a brief update from Dorne Collinson, Director of Children and Families, in terms of the restraint methods used at Aldine House; and

(d)       agrees that a letter be sent, to be signed by the Chair of this Committee, to the young people involved in the illegal tattooing campaign (“scratching”), expressing its thanks and appreciation for their work.