List of contents

To be completed

The Executive summary will be completed following comments from the Topic Group

To include a brief summary of the remit and work of the group.

Explanation that some recommendations are firm, others provisional requiring further work by SQ & AL or awaiting input from the other couples

Reference to the investigation and presentation to the workshop by County Councillors Aislinn Lee (pictured top right) and Seamus Quilty (pictured bottom right)

Recommendations

The recommendations in the report will be listed and cross-referenced to the appropriate paragraph and page number.

To be drafted
Abbreviation / Explanation

1Introduction

1.1The concept of forming a topic group to undertake a systematic scrutiny of the County Council’s ability to deliver the five requirements of the Childrens Act was developed following a seminar for members of the Children Schools & Family (CSF) Scrutiny Committee,

1.2Support was obtained from the Improvement & Development Agency IdEA through their Social Care Adviser (check title), Jackie Tiotto. Jackie attended the initial meetings of the group and subsequent inter-agency workshops (see section 2 below)

1.3A copy of the scoping document for this can be viewed on the County Council web-site at Appendix One contains details of the membership of the Group and its meetings.

1.4Whilst the proposal was to take one of the five outcomes each year, The CSF Scrutiny Committee agreed to a one-year pilot scheme using the Staying Safe Objective.

1.5Following an objective assessment of the merits of this approach at the end of the pilot scheme, the Committee will decide whether it is worth continuing to systematically scrutinise the other four outcomes.

1.6The Group’s work programme anticipates a final reporting being presented to the CSF meeting on the 13 December 2006 with interim reports in June and October. As the first interim report it contains a number of recommendations which fall into one of the following categories:

  • Firm recommendations which the Group consider should be considered for immediate implementation
  • Proposals that require further work by the Group members involved
  • Provisional recommendations that may be influenced by the Group’s continuing work.

2The approach

2.1The Group agreed to work in four pairs with each pairing investigating the ability of Hertfordshire’s safeguarding agencies to deliver one layer of the Childrens Act “onion” (see opposite).

2.2Each pair were provided with a list of core questions developed by Jackie Tiotto. Copies of the questions for this phase of the group’s work can be found in Appendix 2.

2.3Each set of questions covered the following domains:

  • Legislation and Policy
  • Resources and Partnership
  • Corporate Colleagues
  • Conduct and Effective Practice
  • Inpsection
  • LSCBs and Working Together

2.4Topic Group members were assisted by John Richards, Deputy Director of Children Schools & Families, who provided professional advice and facilitated a number of information gathering visits.

2.5Each pair will report back to an inter-agency workshop comprised of other topic group members plus representatives from the partner organisations listed in Appendix 3.

2.6The first workshop was held on 6 April and attended by the delegates listed in Appendix 4.

2.7The recommendations from that event were reported to the Topic Group at its meeting on 11 May 2006 and amended by the Group to form those detailed in this report.

2.8As part of their investigation Aislinn Lee and Seamus Quilty visited Worcestershire County Council during which they were accompanied by David Moses, Head of Scrutiny who is the lead corporate officer for this topic. A copy of the notes of their visit is attached as Appendix 5.

2.9A copy of the presentation made to the workshop is attached as Appendix 6.

3Outcomes Recommendations

3.1Legislation & Policy

3.1.1Evidence gathered to develop the recommendation in response to this question included:

  • CYPP identifies key national targets and outcomes
  • Some are translated to the local situation
  • Some are the responsibility of agencies other than CSF e.g. Community Safety, Police
  • The outcomes are of a high level
  • It was noted that children’s services were very diffuse and that the Herts Children Trust would be bringing them together ‘under one umbrella’. Integration of the different agencies involved would be integral to its success. Further work needed to be undertaken to determine how integration might best be demonstrated (for example, impact assessments might be one way of achieving this).
  • The Topic Group also decided that when preparing its final report, reference should be made to the changing national situation regarding targets and the emphasis between national and local.
  • Evidence had been found that children and young people are participating at many different levels currently:
  • Youth Charter
  • Speak-up events; children’s fund
  • In schools – viewpoint, peer mentoring, head teachers question time
  • Engagement in surveys

3.1.5There was however in-sufficient evidence of their participation in the development of the Safeguarding Board and the new safeguarding In relation to recommendation 2(2), delegates did not consider that young people should necessarily sit on the Safeguarding Board. However, they agreed it was imperative that young people should have the opportunity to feed into this process, particularly with regard to evaluating what is/has been delivered, and also on an individual level, into their own assessments.

3.1.6The Executive Member (Jane Pitman pictured right) commented that she had asked the Safeguarding Board to report to this Topic Group on its response to the “monitoring the safeguarding board” questions.

3.2Resources and Partnership

3.2.1The Topic Group was informed that:

  • There is some evidence in the annual performance assessment (APA) but this is new territory for some agencies.
  • There is a considerable amount of work being doing with district councils.
  • A lack of resources can be a weakness in delivering this duty.

3.2.2The workshop agreed with the evidence found and with the recommendations made.

3.2.3George Robertson, the representative of district councils agreed to discuss recommendation 5 with district council colleagues across the County.

3.2.4Their response was fed back into the next meeting of the Topic Group, suggesting that a level of funding be recommended by the Group. This was declined on the basis that it was for each organisation to decide on the level of funding required.

3.2.5The Group endorsed the view expressed at the workshop that the new duty placed on a number of organisations, but particularly district councils, had not been accompanied with a requisite increase in government funding.

3.2.6It was therefore appropriate for the concerns to be represented in these recommendations and that they should remain as presented to the workshop.

3.2.7The Group were informed that were advised that this question had been addressed in questions 5, 9 and 10.

3.3Conduct and Effective Practice

3.3.1The investigation had identified that:

  • District Councils have community plans which are linked, where appropriate, to the five outcomes.
  • Some corporate departments in the County Council (e.g. Fire Service) have objectives related to the five outcomes.

3.3.2Members of the Topic Group discussed the aim of this recommendation. As an example it was noted that there was some evidence that not all of the County Council’s departments had explicit references to the outcomes in their plans and it was questioned whether this could be reflected across other agencies. Therefore, the intention was to focus in on the need to bring a consistent approach within the all safeguarding agencies.

3.3.3In respect of question 6, the Topic Group was informed that:

  • There are some measures in place.
  • Many of the PAF indicators relate to the staying safe outcome. These do measure improvement from a baseline and can show trends.
  • Some measurements are in their infancy.
  • Others don’t exist.

3.3.4Within the health system there is an agreed performance management framework in place which assesses trusts’ performance against the five outcomes. The outcomes are also represented in the national service framework for children and young people, which have recently been audited. The CYPSB and Safeguarding Boards have formalised duties for partner organisations which reflect the outcomes for children. The Boards had plans and objectives which were performance managed and reported upon in annual audits.

3.3.5Concerns were however expressed that these performance measures could be lost during the proposed structural changes planned for a number of statutory agencies.

3.4Conduct and Effective Practice

3.4.1The investigation had not found any evidence that managers have set targets which could be measured (see community strategies).

3.4.2There was however evidence that performance indicators about the protection of children are measured.

3.4.3Delegates attending the workshop agreed that performance indicators should be widely shared. It was also suggested that they be extended to include details of the action taken/to be taken, together with review dates. It was further suggested that those groups with whom performance indicators are shared should have the opportunity to feed into the process for setting them. Both these suggestions were accepted and are reflected in the above recommendation.

3.4.4Evidence was available in the CYP Plan (pages 16, 22 and 23). in respect of question 8 but delegates at the workshop and the meeting of the topic group supported the following recommendation.

3.5Inspection

3.5.1There is evidence that the intentions are there to have targets which are measurable, e.g.:

  • Reducing drug & alcohol abuse and related crime
  • Reducing anti-social behaviour
  • Reducing road traffic accidents

But there are no measurable targets associated with these.

3.5.2Delegates at the workshop did not agree with the evidence found and considered this an area for further investigation.

3.5.3The Topic Group agreed that any further investigation in this area should wait until future workshops have been completed.

3.5.4The Executive Member commented that a report was being considered by the Childrens Trust Board at its first meeting next week which it might be useful for the Topic Group to consider and might give some of the evidence needed. This will be fed into a future meeting of the Group.

3.5.5In respect of question 10, there was evidence thatLocal targets are being set e.g. development of community based activities that direct young people from anti-social behaviours but that:

  • these targets are fairly broad and as yet do not have actual numbers associated with them.
  1. Delegates at the workshop considered that this needed further investigation, particularly discussion with partner groups, which it was felt would alter both the evidence found and subsequently the recommendations made.
  1. LSCBs and Working Together
  2. There are two strategies in place:
  3. LSCBMulti-Agency Safeguarding Children Training Programme.
  4. Child Protection training for designated senior persons in schools.
  5. There is also evidence that training programmes are pushing out the boundaries e.g. lunchtime seminars.

3.6.3It was agreed that this was an extremely important issue; training should take account of:

  • emergency staffing issues.
  • para-professionals.
  • the need to keep updating training programmes.
  • the need to train existing as well as new staff (it was suggested that the date(s) training was undertaken should be recorded, together with recommendations for further training, and training review dates).
  • the need to provide staff with the time and opportunity to attend training courses (the work of the ‘The Way We Work With IT Topic Group’ in relation to this issue (e.g. long distance learning) was noted).
  • The multi-agency opportunities available.
  1. The Executive Member informed the meeting of Topic Group the an area of concern to her was whether the large number of childcare workers in various agencies were suitably qualified to work with children. It was agreed that the Head of Scrutiny would reflect the Executive Members comments in the interim report and this area of concern would be tested in future workshops.
  2. Evidence in respect of question 12 was found in the requirement to complete a core assessment form when investigating child protection concerns. The domains for the assessment include:
  • Health (being healthy)
  • Education (enjoying and achieving)
  • Emotional/Behavioural/Identity (making a positive contribution)..
  • Whilst there was no further recommendation made in respect of this item, it was the view of the workshop that this was an area that needed further investigation; delegates were not confident that completion of core assessment forms provide sufficient evidence that no further improvements were necessary.

3.7General Recommendations

3.7.1The Workshop was presented with a number of general recommendations for improving safeguarding arrangements.

3.7.2Recommendations 15 and 16 were supported by the Topic Group.

3.7.3Concern had been expressed by CSF delegates at the workshop over the Service’s ability to meet the deadline outlined in recommendation The Executive Member commented that she understood this concern as the deadline of December 2006 was not achievable by that date. Investment was going into this area and more staff were being recruited but the target would need to time to achieve.

3.7.4The Topic Group considered that the recommendation should however remain as an aspiration for the Service.

3.7.5 In respect of recommendation 17, the Workshops agreed that recruitment and retention of staff was vital. Delegates considered, however, that Hertfordshire had specific employment issues to be addressed, which were far wider and much more complex than just the employing of overseas staff.The Topic Group there agreed that this recommendation should be re-visited during the remaining workshops.

Topic Group Members

D W HillsChairman - county councillor

D E Billing county councillor

J E Heywoodcounty councillor

A Lee county councillor

S Quilty county councillor

R H Smithcounty councillor

M Calvertadded member of the topic group (added member of CSF (parent representative - east area))

D Williamsnon voting member of the topic group (non voting member of CSF (teacher representative (national union of teachers) of CSF)

Officer support

D Moses Head of Scrutiny - Lead Scrutiny Officer

J TiottoSenior National Advisor, I&DeA, Advisor to the topic group

J Richards, Deputy Director (social care and prevention) - CSF Lead Officer

E Shell Democratic Services Officer

Meetings

09/09/05Informal meeting, election of D Hills, introduction of J Tiotto, and agreement that 'staying safe' should be the focus of their scrutiny

28/10/05First formal meeting of the topic group, election of D Hills as chairman, R Smith as VC, noted scoping document, considered and agreed a framework for their scrutiny, agreed pairings of members to work together, agreed a list of partners to approach to work with the topic group, agreed to present final recommendations to December 2006

20/01/06Agreed the ' toolkit ' of questions suggested by J Tiotto to inform and frame the scrutiny review

10/02/06First workshop held with partner organisations; explaining to partners the scrutiny being undertaken by the topic group, the way the topic group hoped to work (a new way), partners' views and the potential for their contribution to local safeguarding.

05/04/06Second workshop: outcomes presentation by A Lee and S Quilty (questions addressed, organisations/people visited, recommendations formed and partner feedback, develop interim report and recommendations to CSF

11/5/06Formal meeting of the topic group to discuss their interim report to Cttee

Frontline /

Legislation and Policy

1 / Is there evidence that frontline staff across the local children’s sector have a clear and secure understanding of local safeguarding processes, and put them into practice?
2 / Is there evidence that the LSCB regularly reviews the effectiveness of line management structures and activities as they relate to safeguarding?

Resources and Partnership

3 / Is there evidence of collaborative working across duty to co-operate and LSCB partner agencies in respect of frontline safeguarding practice?
4 / Have resources been identified across duty to co-operate and LSCB partner agencies which effectively promote the implementation of the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children’s Workforce as it relates to safeguarding practice?

Corporate colleagues

5 / Is there evidence that all frontline staff and line managers across agencies with a duty in relation to children understand and apply safeguarding procedures through supervision and annual performance development reviews?
6 / Is there evidence that all partner agencies with duties in relation to children have robust and effective recruitment and selection procedures that ensure that all staff, elected members and non-executives are suitable to work with or for children and young people?

Conduct and Effective Practice

7 / Is there evidence of a common and integrated induction processes for all staff across agencies with a duty in relation to children which focuses on their duty to co-operate to improve well-being, and/or their duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare?
8 / Is there evidence that recording systems capture core safeguarding measures across duty to co-operate partner agencies?

Inspection

9 / Are safeguarding thresholds consistent across the duty to co-operate and LSCB partner agencies?
10 / Is there evidence of a regular case file audit of safeguarding measures by first line managers across the duty to co-operate partners?

LSCBs and Working Together

11 / Is there a mechanism in place for the LSCB to regularly review and audit safeguarding management practice at the front line?
12 / Is there evidence that the LSCB is developing its workforce training and development role?