Agenda item

5.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, attaching the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board – Annual Report 2015/16.

5.2

In attendance for this item were Jane Haywood (Independent Chair, Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB)) and Victoria Horsefield (Assistant Director and Quality Assurance Professional Adviser to the SSCB).

5.3

Jane Haywood referred to the introductory 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 Haywood, who had taken the role of Independent Chair in April 2016, referred to multi-agency partnership working in Sheffield in terms of safeguarding children and young people, with all partner agencies being very supportive of each other, and each other’s agendas.  She stated that there had been excellent work undertaken in a number of key areas.  In terms of challenges for the coming year, she referred to proposed changes in legislation, specifically the removal of the legal requirement for Safeguarding Boards, and a move to more localised, and possibly regional, working.

5.4

Victoria Horsefield referred to some of the specific initiatives during 2016/17, including the emphasis on preventative work in order to stop incidences of abuse, harm or neglect in families escalating.  She also made reference to the work undertaken in connection with Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), the Youth Suicide Prevention Pathway and the Hidden Harm (Substance Misuse) Strategy.  Ms Horsefield reported on the proposed Business Plan for 2017/18.  Two  of the key priorities included looking at the issues regarding the transition of children and young people as they approached adulthood into adult services, and a project looking specifically at Teenage Partner Abuse.  On 22^nd May 2017, the Board, in conjunction with the NSPCC, would be launching the ‘It’s Not OK’ campaign in connection with sexual abuse and exploitation. 

5.5

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

·                One of the roles of the Independent Chair of the SSCB was to hold all partners to account and, as part of this role, the Chair would meet with the Chief Executives of the Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group and the City Council, and the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, to discuss progress, or any issues of concern.  The Board has the power to ask questions of all the partner agencies.

·                The Board was happy with the current policies, which were constantly being reviewed and updated, if required.  If there were any issues with the policies, the Board would raise these with the Chief Executives of the relevant agencies, although there had been no cause for this action to date.

·                The partner agencies held their own budgets in terms of their safeguarding responsibilities, and although all the agencies had, and continued to face, reductions in their budgets over the last few years, they remained fully committed in terms of their individual responsibilities.  The Board and the partner agencies were constantly reviewing their budgets in the light of such reductions.  The Board had built up some reserves, which were held as a contingency for Serious Case Reviews, but was not using such reserves as part of its core service.  A further review of its funding formula would have to be reviewed in the light of the expected changes in the next few years. 

·                Children and Families Services and the partner agencies would work with all families where it was identified there could be potential safeguarding issues, with a strong emphasis on prevention.  Whilst no specific targeted work was aimed at single parents, the agencies would adopt a similar approach as with any other family. 

·                It was accepted that there could be specific concerns regarding the vulnerability of care leavers and, although relevant help and support should be included as part of their care plans, a full assessment would be undertaken in those cases where concerns had been raised.  Resources were concentrated on the early intervention and prevention stage, and there was considerable work undertaken in universal services, including schools and GP practices.

·                Although there was no reference within the SSCB Annual Report to work regarding the radicalisation of children and young people, there was a specific officer dealing with this area of work, who worked closely with the partner agencies.  Training was also provided on this issue.

·                In terms of issues regarding alcohol and substance misuse, there was a Substance Misuse Worker, who worked very closely with Children and Families Services and drug and alcohol services. There had been recent changes in the City, where there had been an increase in the number of parents using legal highs, cannabis and steroids.  The partner agencies continued their work in looking at the effects of this on children and young people within households.  Issues with regard to alcohol misuse were historically more difficult to identify, with alcohol being prevalent in many households.  It was easier to identify issues in those households where parents were receiving treatment for alcohol or substance misuse, as questions would be raised in terms of whether they had any children, or were in contact with children, who could be affected.  Such cases would then be referred to a Health Visitor or Family Liaison Officer.

·                Whilst there was no clear evidence at this time, to show that there was an increase in cases of teenage abuse in households where alcohol and substance misuse was prevalent, there was a likelihood that there would be a better understanding of any such links next year.

·                It was accepted that there were difficulties in terms of what questions to ask when trying to identify cases of abuse, harm or neglect, and to aid this process, the Independent Chair of the Board had begun a programme of meetings with those officers of the partner agencies on the front-line, including social workers and representatives of the MASTs, as well as meeting children and young people deemed at risk.  The Board acknowledged that there was a clear protocol in terms of the safeguarding of children and young people, and that the Board and partner agencies all worked within such a protocol.  If Members had any concerns about children and young people, they should alert officers to these.

·                It was accepted that, due to the nature of the work involved, such partnership working arrangements would never be perfect, but Sheffield worked hard to keep children safe. Efforts were continuously made to improve, including learning from other areas in the country, and there was a considerable level of information-sharing between different Safeguarding Children Boards.

·                Officers were not aware of any increased concerns about street child sexual exploitation, or any link between an increase in such action and the reduction in the budgets of the partner agencies.  Whilst the budget reductions had forced the agencies to review their working practices, it was not believed that such budget cuts had affected activity in this area.  If there were reports of a possible increase in such activity, this issue would be raised with the police.

·                Although the change in terms of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) now treating children and young people up to the age of 18 had helped in terms of their transition to the Adult Mental Health Service, it was accepted that there were still a number of issues in terms of such transition.  The Transition Sub-Group would continue to monitor this issue, and such work would include thinking about the transition at an earlier stage.  One of the issues identified as being a contributing factor to this problem may be that the threshold in terms of children and young people accessing the CAMHS was much lower in comparison to accessing the Adult Mental Health Service.

·                Cases regarding young carers were referred to the Hidden Harm Group to be put in the Hidden Hard Strategy Action Plan.

·                It was difficult to comment on the implications of any proposed new arrangements for the Board at this point. The Committee would be kept informed as the new arrangements developed.

5.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the report now submitted, and the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2015/16, together with the responses to the questions raised;

(b)       highlights the importance of a Sheffield focus to any new arrangements;

(c)        expresses its thanks to Jane Haywood and Victoria Horsefield for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised; and

(d)       requests that Members be (i) informed of the changes to local Safeguarding Children Boards and (ii) sent information on (A) the “It’s Not OK” campaign and (B) the launch of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub.