Attendance
David Billing / Children Act Topic Group Member / Herts County CouncilMary Calvert / Children Act Topic Group Member / Herts County Council
Pat Cherry / Parent Representative / Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee
Mary Emson / Nurse / ListerHospital
Liz Hanlon / Detective Inspector / Hertfordshire Police Service
Dave Hewitt / CountyCouncillor / Herts County Council
Angela Hickin / Safeguarding Children Board
DerekHills / Chairman of Children Act Topic Group / Herts County Council
John Hughes / Director of Operations / Hertfordshire Probation Service
Andy Joyce / Detective Sergeant / Hertfordshire Police Service
Heather Moulder / St Albans and Harpenden PCT
Tom Rees / Assistant Director Youth Justice Service / Herts County Council
John Richards / Deputy Director Social Care and Prevention / Herts County Council
George Robertson / Head of Corporate Development / Three Rivers District Council
Sue Sheffield / Head Teacher / WilshereDacreJuniorSchool
Richard Smith / Children Act Topic Group Member / Herts County Council
Rodney Tucker / Parent Representative / Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee
Phil Willerton / Watford YMCA
Dave Williams / Teacher Representative / Children, Schools & Families Scrutiny Committee
Topic Group Officers Present:
Nicola HaydenDemocratic Services Officer
David MosesHead of Scrutiny
1. / WELCOME1.1 / The Chairman welcomed all delegates to the workshop.
David Moses set the scene for the workshop with reference to the circulated programme.
2.PRESENTATION
David Moses presented the interim findings and recommendations of the two sub-groups investigations into the ‘governance and strategy’ and systems and processes’ elements of delivering the safeguarding agenda in Hertfordshire.
The ‘governance and strategy’ sub-group comprised Richard Smith and Jean Heywood and the ‘systems and processes’ sub-group comprised DerekHills and Dave Williams.
In response to questions John Hughes explained how MAPPA worked (Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements) and John Richards clarified the role of the Designated Allegation Managers.
Following the presentation delegates broke into small groups: each to challenge and discuss the recommendations that had been made.
3.PLENARY SESSION
David Moses invited each of the workshop groups to feedback their main comments on the recommendations. These comments are summarised in the attached appendix.
There was a general consensus however that the when writing the final report the recommendations should be listed in one column with all the detail behind the recommendation in another column. It was also agreed that there was a need to prioritise the more crucial recommendations.
Derek Hills, Richard Smith and Dave Williams thanked all the hard working and committed staff who had agreed to be interviewed and gave their time, and to the staff who helped arrange the interviews.
The Chairman concluded the session by thanking everyone for their participation.
Nicola Hayden
Democratic Services
County Hall
Tel: 01992 555560
Email:
1
061108 workshop notes
APPENDIX
No. / Recommendations1. / The CSF Scrutiny Committee should monitor the journey of travel at 6 or 9 monthly intervals
Workshop
feedback / It was agreed that there might not be enough evidence to monitor the journey in 6 months time so perhaps this timeframe should be extended.
2. / Monitoring to be done through multi-agency partnership workshops
Workshop
feedback / Members queried how they would know that this monitoring is taking place and agreed that any monitoring must be SMART.
It was agreed that this recommendation must consider both qualitative feedback and quantitative information.
3. / The CYP Trust Board should periodically review the structure and in particular whether:
-the structure could be simplified
-the LSCB is seen to be operating independently
Workshop Feedback / It was agreed that the CYPTB and the Children’s Trust should keep their structure under review (at all stages) and in particular clarify whether these structures are fit for purpose. It was suggestion the recommendation be reworded as follows:
‘The CYPTB should keep their structures under review and in particular clarify whether:
the structures are fit for purpose
the LSCB is seen to be operating independently’
4. / The CYPTB should commission an independent audit of each agency’s participation
Workshop Feedback / Members were concerned that this could prove resource intensive and agreed that a combination of self audit and independent audit would be more viable. They also noted that an audit that focussed on the gaps in terms of agencies that should be participating but are not would be beneficial. A revised recommendation was proposed as follows:
‘The CYTPB should maintain a record of and review each agency’s participation.’
5. / The perception that Hertfordshire may not be achieving the right balance between risk assessment and its commitment not to ‘criminalise’ or ‘label’ children & young people should be addressed by the LSCB.
Workshop Feedback / It was agreed that this was an important recommendation and the LSCB was the right place for this to be addressed.
However Members asked that the following (or similar) be added to the recommendation:
‘…should be addressed by the LSCB, and they should be confident that this balance is right’.
Members also felt that ‘perception’ was not a strong enough word and asked that this be strengthened accordingly.
6. / Consideration should be given by the CYP Trust Board to further short term measures to promote shared values between the Herts Safeguarding Agencies
Workshop Feedback / Recommendation agreed
7. / The LSCB chair should instigate an urgent review of:
–Attendance at and management of MAPPA meetings
–Benefits/disbenefits of a separate children & young persons MAPPA
Workshop Feedback / It was agreed that this should be separated into two recommendations to avoid people assuming that the two bullet points were dependent on one another. There was also some discussion about whether this recommendation should in fact reflect the work that is currently underway to develop a separate children and young persons MAPPA. There was also some concern about the fact that there was no mention of risk of harm training and asked that this be included in the wider report.
8. / There should be a review of the case conference format and attendance
Workshop Feedback / It was suggested that the recommendation should be reworded to read:
‘There should be a review of the case conference format, attendance and location to ensure best practice.’
9. / HCC should resource an adequate number of Designated Allegation Managers
Workshop Feedback / Recommendation agreed.
10 / Consideration should be given to both the number of and availability of CPSLOs
Workshop feedback / Recommendation agreed.
11 / The CSF Review of Referrals should address the:
–perceived lack of proactive feedback to partner organisations
–need to provide for those who fall just outside of the referral criteria
Workshop feedback / Members were informed that the CSF review of referrals was due to start w/c 13 November 2006 and asked that the evidence already collected by members be made available to the reviewers. There was also concern that the review of referrals must take account of the views of partner organisations if the overall culture is to be changed. It was also agreed that this should be split into two recommendations:
‘The CSF Review of Referrals Project should address the perceived lack of proactive feedback to partner organisations and the outcome of the Review should be presented to the CSF Scrutiny Committee.’
‘CSF need to review the services provided for those who fall just outside of the referral criteria.’
12 / The outcome of the CSF Review of Referrals project should be reviewed by the CSF Scrutiny Committee
Workshop feedback / Recommendation agreed.
13. / CSF should consider what further measures could be taken to advertise the availability of the “What if” process, particularly to GPs
Workshop feedback / The words ‘more widely’ should be inserted between ‘advertise’ and ‘the’.
14. / CSF should develop and publicise a strategy for dealing with issues associated with the IRIS system
Workshop feedback / All members agreed that this recommendation needed to be strengthened to reflect the real concerns with the IRIS System. It was noted that Members were not confident that the protocols being put in place would address all of the problems. It was suggested the recommendation be reworded as follows:
‘CSF should further review all the issues associated with the IRIS system using additional information from other topic groups.’
15 / The HSCB should clarify its priority strategy for improving the information sharing at an individual case level
Workshop feedback / Recommendation agreed.
16. / The HSCB’s review of participation by the Hertfordshire Safeguarding Partner Organisations should include:
–An audit of the CRB checks and standard of child protection training
–The level of participation at and protocols for disseminating lessons emerging from meetings of the Local Area Practice Forums
Workshop feedback / It was agreed there was a real gap in terms of risk of harm training provided by the Council and Members asked that this be addressed. Members also felt that the recommendation should be reworded to avoid any confusion with regards to the excellent level of training provided (the recommendation as read could imply there was a query of the standard of training). The following amendment was suggested:
Inserting ‘training being assessed by those partner organisations not availing themselves of the CSF multi-agency training’ at the end of the first sub bullet point.
1
061108 workshop notes