1. family and parenting
2. children

WORCESTERSHIRE SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD
Thursday 7th November 2014, 2.00pm – 5.00pm
"Children and young people in Worcestershire receiving the right services at the right time to feel safe and be protected from harm
and neglect"
Priorities:
by reducing the impact of domestic abuse, mental ill health and substance misuse;
from all forms of exploitation
through information sharing and professional challenge;
by driving continuous improvement
Present
Diana Fulbrook, Chair
Sylvia Dyke, Lay Member
Mari Gay, SW CCG
Sue Haddon, WSCB Manager
Carol Duncan, NEW College
Kevin Dicks, Bromsgrove/Redditch Council (DC rep)
Sandra Brennan, Worcs Health & Care NHS Trust
Jo Galloway, BRCCG
Vikki Tweddle, NHS England
John Edwards - Learning & Achievement, WCC
DI Steve Cullen, West Mercia Police
Minutes : Sarah Berry, WSCB Administrator
Dr Andy Mills, Designated Doctor
Carol Newton, Holyoakes Field First School (first schools rep)
Adrienne Plunkett, Children's Services, Safeguarding and QA
Siobhan Williams, Safeguarding & Services to Children & Young People
Keith Barham, Youth Offending Service
Michael Hunter, Voluntary Sector
Ellen Footman, Designated Nurse
Richard Keble - Head of Joint Commissioning, WCC (Adult Services rep)
George Branch, WM Probation Trust
Hilary Dowding - Birchensale Middle School (middle schools rep)
Alun Williams, Nunnery Wood High School (secondary schools rep)
Apologies:
Dr Jonathan Leach – named GP; Carol Thompson, Healthwatch; Lindsey Webb, Worcs Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; Clare Huyton, Festival Housing; Annie
Bushby, WSCB Lay Member; Julie Ashby-Ellis, WM Ambulance Service; Liz Eyre - Lead Member, WCC; Julie Shaw, CAFCASS
Item
Discussion
Welcome, Introductions and
Apologies
DF welcomed any new members, introductions were made and apologies given.
Action
Page 1 of 8
Item
Discussion
Action
Part 1 – Strategy and Priorities
John Dickinson, WSCB Training
Officer and Angela Eason,
WSCB Training and
Development Adviser
JD and AE facilitated a preliminary discussion about service user feedback which
included asking Board members to consider:
What do we mean by service user feedback?
Who should we be seeking feedback from?
What does the Board need by way of feedback to assure itself that
safeguarding is effective in Worcestershire?
See attachments below
Feedback was captured using the pin point methodology and will be clustered to form
themes (see embedded documents). These initial thoughts will be used to inform the
development of the service user strategy to be developed further by the Safeguarding
Effectiveness Executive (SEE).
The strategy to be brought to the February Board for approval.
Part 2 - Business
2.1 Minutes and matters arising
(DF)
Minutes - Amendments needed to previous minutes are:
MH omitted from attendance list.
EF gave apologies which were not noted.
LE was present but arrived late.
Minutes were approved subject to these amendments.
SB to amend minutes for
publication.
AW said he did not receive a copy of the agenda and SH confirmed that they had
been circulated in the usual way and that she had checked that he was included in
the contact list.
Action Log
The Child's Journey: Early Help and Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) - Time
frame to be established.
SC has a meeting next week; discussion to take place and to come back to Board.
The Child's Journey: Early Help and Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) Update on Herefordshire MASH. SC to provide further update at future Board
meeting.
Membership Induction and Development Programme (potential dates)
DF and SH agreed that four development/induction sessions will be held before
Board meetings from 11.00pm until 1.00pm where possible. Dates have been
discussed and will be confirmed for Board members. David Spicer is to be
commissioned to deliver an update on law and policy developments.
SC – ongoing
SC – ongoing
DF/SH Action
th
The Board Development Day on Thursday 12 December is confirmed and venue is
Worcestershire Young Farmers.
Page 2 of 8
Item
Discussion
Adolescence Sub Group
Pete Morgan, Chair of WSAB, has now confirmed that there is not an appetite to set
up a joint group to look at young vulnerable adults/adolescents as they are unlikely to
meet the eligibility criteria for Adult Protection and therefore are not the core
business of the Safeguarding Adults Board. EF considered that he may not be
presenting the view of all Board members and it was agreed that SH should explore
this further.
Housing Provider Representation
Festival Housing has agreed to send Claire Huyton as their representative. KD to
work with her on the best ways to represent the housing sector and to identify any
specific housing related issues.
2.2 SEE Highlight Report
(SC)
Action
SH Action
CH/KD Action
See Highlight Report - Home Educated Children
DF to attend national conference of LSCB Chairs in November and raise issues.
DF to report back
Safeguarding Risk Indicators – Peer Review
Claire Burgess is keen to support the identification of another LSCB willing to engage
in a peer review process. DF to keep Board updated.
DF to progress
Safeguarding Risk Indicators – Learning from Ofsted Inspections
th
SH has emailed members who are required to respond by 27 November. SH to
collate and analyse feedback.
SH to action
Case Review 5 Summary Report and Action Planning
The exercise was well received and thought worthwhile by those at SEE. Questions
were raised and good feedback given which will inform the Action Plan.
Bullying Survey
The 8000 responses were more than anticipated. Now to be taken forward by the
Children’s Trust Board and is work in progress.
Safeguarding Conversations
Concerns have been raised by HACW about what should be recorded in children's
files about the SC process and about the fact that family members are not aware.
MH noted that the aim is to focus on how agencies work together and wider practice
issues, not about a particular case. SB added that if the case is being presented
anonymously then it is not a breach of confidentiality. Following some discussion it
was agreed that the cases should continue to be anonymised and, on the basis that
it is purely a QA activity, there is not a requirement to record details of the process on
the child's records or to inform families. Within the MACFAs it has now been agreed
that agency representatives will take back any immediate safeguarding actions which
AE to Action
DF to review TOR to reflect
this issue
Page 3 of 8
Item
Discussion
Action
are required as a result of the audit process and this is now reflected in the revised
Terms of Reference. DF will review the SC TOR to reflect this.
2.3 Agency Updates:
Probation - GB
CAFCASS - JS
Probation – George Branch
Negotiations between Probation and the Government are yet to be concluded. Once
this stage has been completed, staff will be given the opportunity to express whether
they wish to go to CRC or to the National Probation Service. It has not yet been
decided how the CRC will engage with local safeguarding children boards. GB will
keep Board members informed of decisions in respect of how adults who may pose a
risk are to be managed. A briefing paper was circulated for information.
CAFCASS – Julie Shaw
JS was unable to attend meeting due to ill health. To be re-visited at a future date.
2.4 Health structure
(VT)
2.5 Health and Wellbeing Board
Protocol
(DF)
2.6 Ofsted Inspection Framework
(DF/SW)
GB to update WSCB
To revisit
Vikki Tweddle (who has replaced Helen Hipkiss on WSCB) presented the health
structures report which referenced the NHS Reforms and Commissioning
Responsibilities. The Kings Fund link http://vimeo.com/69224754 explains the new
structures within the NHS. The key message is that Health is no longer one
organisation, but made up of those who commission, those who provide and those
who monitor services.
This has been presented and approved at the Adult Board. Feedback has been
provided by WSCB members as follows:
Previous suggestion from Gail Quinton that a sentence needs to be
added to reflect the relationship with the Child Trust Board.
EF: Resolution Process (Point 5) refers to ChS, Adult Services and Public
Health. Is this the right balance?
Typos noted by HACW
KD queried whether this version was up-to-date as he has heard that it is under
review. DF noted that there are concerns around the Resolution Process That need
to be clarified and agreed to discuss with Gail Quinton who is a member of the
HWBB.
DF to progress with GQ
There is ongoing speculation in the Local Authority regarding the timing of the next
Ofsted safeguarding inspection under the new framework. The inspections are being
undertaken randomly and so it could be any time within the next 3 years. LSCBs will
be reviewed as part of the wider inspection and graded in their own right for the first
time in terms of their effectiveness.
The LSCB review framework, recently out for consultation, has been circulated for
information only at this stage. Once the framework has been finalised and is
Page 4 of 8
Item
Discussion
Action
published, clarification will be provided for WSCB members on how to access this
and any other inspection-related documentation they need to be aware of. It was
agreed to have session at a future Board meeting to discuss Inspection preparation.
SH to action
Part 3 - Performance
3.1 Serious Case Reviews
(AP)
Response to SCIE
findings
Response to SCIE findings
The 8 findings and questions that the findings generated have been discussed at
both the SEE Meeting in October and the SCR Sub Group. An attempt has been
made to link the actions with work that is currently ongoing wherever possible. The
WSCB agreed with the report.
A discussion took place about the proposed actions and suggestions were made
regarding the actions/wording. AP to further work up the Action Plan and bring back
to the Board.
Daniel Pelka SCR
Daniel Pelka SCR
EF presented the Daniel Pelka SCR briefing paper. Partners are asked to
disseminate within their own agencies and use the briefing as a basis for discussion
with practitioners. Need to emphasis the key point that no-one spoke to the child so
his voice was not heard.
FW Action Plan
FW Action Plan
AP advised that this SCR was published in June. An update in respect of the Action
Plan was received.
The Training and Development Group are drafting a letter to all partners requesting
that they review their training plans to ensure that training on drug and alcohol risk
assessment is identified for all relevant staff. This is not out yet but SH will take this
issue back as we need to ensure District Councils are linked in.
DF is presently in discussion with Richard Swann (independent facilitator) regarding
th
the SCR Workshop component of the development Day to be held on 12 December.
AP to email all members and ask them to identify their top 3 priorities from the list of
SCR issues and the workshop will be based upon their response.
AP to develop the SCIE
Action Plan and bring back
to the Board
SH to ensure that DCs are
included in this process
AP to action
Page 5 of 8
Item
Discussion
Action
Criminal investigation
An update was provided by DCI Barratt on the criminal investigation previously
reported to the Board.
3.2 Performance Framework
(SH)
Highlight Report
SH introduced the new Highlight Exception Report to be read in conjunction with the
dashboard. Board members had asked for further analysis of the data and headlines
which would assist them in determining whether they could be assured about
performance or needed to be concerned about any specific issues. An attempt had
been made to include more benchmarking against national and local data and to
comment on the direction of travel in respect of any targets.
DF asked the Board if this exception report was helpful. It was noted that the quality
of performance information was better than had been received previously and it was
agreed that further exception reports should be produced.
Themed Report – Quality of Plans
SH introduced the themed report on the Quality of Plans. This is the first of the
planned themed reports as per the performance reporting schedule (wheel) which
seeks to pull together both quantitative and qualitative performance information in
respect of those areas identified in the performance framework. Analysis was
undertaken of CIN, LAC and CP cases. Some themes around the quality of CIN
Plans in particular have been identified and gaps in performance information which
mean that it is not possible for the Board to be assured about some aspects of
practice.
SW noted that it should be possible to address any recommendations in her next
HOS report.
The recommendations made in the themed report were accepted.
3.3 ChSC Performance Report
(SW)
SW introduced her report. A key issue raised in the report was the impact that the
new service design has had on staff and on the delivery of frontline services. She
acknowledged that the performance of Children's Social care services has dipped as
a direct result. SW stated that the re-structure was necessary but has had a far
greater impact than was originally anticipated. The cumulative impact of reorganisation of teams, workload and office re-location has been major on individual
practitioners, some of whom have found the process traumatic. All these changes
have been carried out in one go which has indirectly impacted on children and their
families. In terms of new working locations, SW felt that staff are now coming out the
other end. There are 20 Social Worker vacancies being advertised currently and the
Page 6 of 8
Item
Discussion
Action
service is still employing some agency staff. Once staff are working to the new
structures and processes the service will be starting to make progress.
Performance information recording is two weeks behind and so performance
information for September and October is not yet available. ChSC has been carrying
out large audits regarding CP and CIN cases and undertaking mock unannounced
inspection activities.
DF thanked SW for her honest and transparent report.
3.4 IRO's Annual Report 2012/13
(Paul McInnes)
PMcI presented the report. It was noted that there is concern echoed about the
impact of the ChSC service re-design and that IROs' caseloads continue to be higher
than they should be.
3.5 Interim Child Protection
Report (6 monthly)
(AP)
Reports are produced every three months to the Board, enabling us to see the
st
direction. AP introduced the report. From the 1 August regular CSE Strategy
meetings are now taking place and a monthly CSE Panel is being held. Steps are
st
being taken toward having a LADO role by 1 December who will be a first point of
contact.
Feedback form for the use of parents and carers is now in use.
3.6 MACFA (9) and MACFA (10)
(NP)
MACFA (9) and MACFA (10)
SH outlined the process of the MACFAs. Themes are determined by the Board's
strategic priorities and also by any issues arising from case reviews. Panel members
take responsibility for scrutinising their own agency's records in advance of the Panel
meeting which informs the discussion between partners about aspects of strong and
weak multi-agency practice. Nicki Pettit, the MACFA Panel Chair, has been
impressed with the level of transparency and openness brought to the process.
SEE members have looked at both reports and have approved the findings and
proposed recommendations.
The Quality Assurance Group is monitoring the integrated MACFA Action Plan which
is a live document that captures the current outstanding actions from the MACFAs.
Board members accepted the findings and approved the recommendations.
Any Other Business
WSAB Annual Report
There were no items of AOB.
Page 7 of 8
Item
Discussion
2012/13
WSCB Development Day
12/12/2013
Bullying Survey headlines
Action
The WSAB Annual Report 2012/13, the date of the Development Day and the
bullying survey headlines were noted for information.
Dates of future meetings
Wednesday 18 December 2-5pm
Haresfield Surgery, Turnpike House Medical Centre, 37 Newtown
Road, Worcester WR5 1HG
Close
Meeting closed at 5.10pm
Page 8 of 8
Question 1 - What do we mean by service user feedback?
Group 1











How is it for you?
Comments with regard services received
Satisfaction with service
Views of people accessing /using our service
Views of groups who use our services
Engagement
What difference did we make for you
Individual case individual agency
o Overall multi agency
o Policy and procedure annual report
Positive areas for development – individual
Complaints/compliments
Direct views form children and young people in the CP system – 'Do you
feel safer?
Group 2
 Asking children and young people about thewir experience – listening and
improving services
 Views from children and families about their experience of services
 Views of children & YP on how the system keeps them safe
 Parents carers did the system/processes work for you?
 Views from parents/carers of c&yp needing protection did you feel you
have been helped to protect your child
 Collect views from children & young people on how the CP system helps
you to feel safe
 Views from c&yp about what information theyrequire
 Collect views from children and young people in CP system 'do you feel
safe'
 Capture experience of children subject to safeguarding
 Experience of the service
 What difference the service received has made to the family
Group 3
 Partner agencies / referrers/practitioners - did it work for you?
 Rapport with professionals
 Continuity of support
 Front line staff eg social workers
 Do professional know what their role is in protecting children?
 Outline the levels of feedback(agreed definition)
 Views of people working on the front line
 views form c+yp about how services can be improved
 met needs
Question 2 - Who should we be seeking feedback from?
Group 1 parents –carers





Parents carers
Parents carers who use the cp system
Parents carers
Families
Parents carers children and young people
Group 2 Children young people







Children of all ages
Children subject to cps - LAC – CYP affected by MARAC
Children young people who have been involved in SG servicesCYP
parents carers
Children young people professionals provider organisations
commissioned organisations
Children and young people X6
Directly from young people and their parental carers
Children young people parents carers agiencies
Group 3 Schools – colleges

Schools Colleges
Group 4 partners organisations agencies









Partnership agencies
Individual partners and agencies
All agencies involved in caring for children all family members
Front line practitioners
Practitioners
Staff involved in CP/ safeguarding
Professionals who work with kids
Community groups
General public safeguarding awareness
Question 3 - What does the Board need by way of feedback to assure itself
that safeguarding is effective in Worcestershire?
Group 1 Regular – systematic





Regular timely feedback from service users
Regular systematic collection of user views
Views of children and young people reports from rep groups
Regular structured feedback
Collated info routinely and regularly collected from service users
Group 2 feedback – outcomes
















Levels of sevice users feeling safe in safeguarding arrangements
What went well statements
Whether the situation improved as a result of services
Individual agency experience if CP service users
Complaints related to safeguarding
Reported levels of feeling safe
Whether children are made safer or are protected
Information of their experience of the service
Evidence of improved outcomes for c&yp and their families ie made a
difference
Both negative and positive feedback that is gathered by all agencies
working with children
What are the sticking points/frustrations
Awareness of the role of the WSCB
MACFAs demonstrate learning is being/ has been embedded learning is
understood by practitioners
Agencies working well together
Feedback need to be embedded into all processes – outcome orientated
Feedback from professionals on effectiveness of info & training
Group 3 Data


Data
Key data – outcomes benchmarked against other regions