Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, containing the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2012/13, which provided an overview of safeguarding children activity and information on the contribution individual partners had made towards safeguarding children in the City.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Susan Fiennes, Independent Chair, Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board, Victoria Horsefield, Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board Manager, and Trevor Owen, Head of Service, Safeguarding Children, Children, Young People and Families. 

6.3

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

·                     For the second year running, emotional abuse was the most common reason for Child Protection Plans (CPPs) being made in the City. Nationally, neglect was the most common reason for a CPP, but Sheffield’s rate in that category was very similar.

·                     Safeguarding Children Boards were required to have Independent Chairs and the Local Authority had responsibility for arranging this contract.  The Chair worked approximately 40 to 50 days a year.  The Local Authority and partners’ view was that the Chair was very committed to the agenda and therefore represented very good value.  Following formal review the previous week, the Local Authority and partners had agreed that Susan Fiennes would continue as the Independent Chair of this Board, as well as the Sheffield Adult Safeguarding Partnership, for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years.

·                     Whilst it appeared that the level of funding (£82,000) allocated to deal with cases of sexual exploitation appeared low, this figure only represented the amount contributed by the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) towards this work.  This amount represented a small, but significant part of a much wider and larger contribution made by the various partner agencies into this important area of work. 

·                     Unusually, Comic Relief funding had been renewed once already. April 2014 would be the start of the second year of the current three-year funding agreement. It had, therefore, some time to run, and it was too early for Comic Relief to indicate whether they would be willing to accept a further application for Sheffield.

·                     There was a willingness to understand how aspects of Sheffield’s model might be usefully applied Country-wide. There was a general recognition, as affirmed recently by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and Ofsted, that Sheffield had an excellent model in terms of its arrangements for handling and responding to sex exploitation. Sexual exploitation was a key priority for the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire. There had been a dedicated Child Sexual Exploitation Service in the City for a number of years, providing a sound platform from which it had been possible to develop the current multi-agency service.

·                     The SSCB had a comprehensive multi-agency training package and, in addition to this, the Board was committed to providing training opportunities that met the needs of the workforce. The Board was keen to adopt new ways of working and to this end, had recently introduced themed audit days to look at specific practice areas.

·                     It was difficult to analyse fully why the number of children subject to CCPs had increased, and any increase or decrease could be due to multiple causes. One possible reason for an increase in cases was that directly following a high profile national serious case review, such as Baby Peter, there was an increased awareness across all partner agencies, which could result in people being considerably more cautious and vigilant. 

·                     It has, and always will be the case that professionals, particularly Social Workers, have to make very difficult decisions. Sheffield was fortunate in that there was a specialist paediatric facility based in the City, and professionals dealing with safeguarding cases were able to call on this for advice and support.  Despite this, paediatricians often found it very difficult to provide a definitive diagnosis in child abuse cases.  In the most serious cases, a Child Protection Conference would be held, comprising all relevant professionals, and where relevant information was shared, views and opinions expressed, and a decision made as to how best to safeguard that particular child.

·                     The role of the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), in managing allegations against staff and volunteers who worked with children and young people, is to manage the three strands of investigation into the allegations – Safeguarding of an individual child, potential criminality and employment/disciplinary issues.  The LADO would also be responsible for ensuring that any enquiries took place in a thorough and fair manner, and that there was a speedy resolution.

·                     Information in terms of the number of children from ethnic groups with CPPs would be circulated to Members of the Committee.

·                     The SSCB had undertaken some specific work with regard to the over-representation of certain ethnic groups subject to CPPs, but acknowledged that further analysis in this area was required. Officers would be comparing current statistics with census data in an attempt to find out why some children were over-represented, and details of any findings would be included in the Safeguarding Children Board’s Annual Report 2013/14.

·                     As part of a programme of work undertaken over the last three years, officers had established safeguarding leads in mosques and madrassas across the City, and there were established safeguarding links with other faith communities. In addition, safeguarding training was provided to all faith communities.

·                     84% of Looked after Children were placed within a 20 mile radius of the City boundary.

·                     There was good evidence of information-sharing and good multi-agency working practices between the different partner agencies.

·                     In terms of Council employee awareness, through the Section 11 audit, the SSCB had worked with the City Council to produce a joint children’s/adult’s safeguarding policy, and all Council employees, as part of their induction programme, have access to a safeguarding e-learning programme. 

6.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the information contained in the report now submitted, together with the responses to the questions raised, and acknowledges the excellent work being undertaken by the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board; and

(b)       thanks Susan Fiennes, Victoria Horsefield and Trevor Owen for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised.