MINUTES OF THE
READING LOCAL SAFEGUARDING BOARD MEETING
26th January 2017
1.45pm to 4.45pm
Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Reading
Attended:
Member
Fran Gosling-Thomas
Richard Blackmore
Andy Fitton
Jayne Reynolds
Grace Fagan
Reva Stewart
Tricia Pease
Anne Farley
Becky Herron
Sarah Hughes
Initial
FGT
Rachel Dent
Emma Kettle
Hannah Powell
Liz Stead
Ashley Robson
Bob Kenwick
Stan Gilmour
Satinder Gautam
Kelly Swaffield
Role
Independent LSCB Chair
Head of Education, RBC
Head of Early Help and Family Intervention, RBC
Windsor & Maidenhead Locality, BHFT and Section 11 Panel Chair
Service Manager Quality Assurance and Reviewing, RBC
Lead for Reading, BHFT
Associate Director of Safeguarding, RBH
Lay Member
CSE Coordinator, RBC and Learning and Development Sub Group Chair
Paediatric Consultant in Neurodisability, locality representative to Designated
Doctor for Child Protection
Abbey School Head Teacher (Independent School)
Berkshire Women’s Aid
Relationships Officer, Thames Valley Community Rehabilitation Company
Head of Safeguarding Children Berkshire West CCGs
Head Reading School
School Governor
Local Area Commander, TVP
Head of Children’s Social Care, RBC
Head of Transformation and Improvement, RBC
Board Support
Esther Blake
Role
LSCB Business Manager
Initial
EB
Members
Anderson Connell
Role
Lay Member
Initial
AC
Debbie Johnson
Kevin Gibbs
Gerry Crawford
Sarah Gee
Ruth Perry
Christine Kattirzki
Cllr Jan Gavin
Kat Jenkin
Ann Marie Dodds
Debbie Simmons
Senior Probation Officer, National Probation Service
Cafcass
Regional Director West, BHFT
Head of Housing and Neighbourhood Services, RBC
Primary Head Teacher, Caversham Primary
Secondary Head Teacher, Kendrick School
Lead Member for Children’s Services
South Central Ambulance Service
Acting Director of Children, education and early Help Services, RBC
Nurse Director, Berkshire West CCGs
DJ
KG
GC
SGe
RP
CK
JG
KJ
AMD
DS
Head of Service, Berkshire CAMHS
LN
RB
AFi
JR
GF
RS
TP
AFa
BH
SH
RD
EK
HP
LS
AR
BK
SG
SGa
KS
Apologies:
Donna Gray
Louise Noble
DG
LSCB Coordinator
1
Item
Item 1
Discussion and Action
Welcome and Introductions
Item 2
FGT welcomed members and apologies were noted. This meeting had been rescheduled so as
not to clash with the Future in Mind partnership meeting, therefore more apologies than
usual were noted.
Previous Minutes and Outstanding Actions
Whom
Previous minutes:
Minutes of 24th November were signed off as a true record.
Disabled children – TP noted that progress has been positive and Judith Ramsden (DCS,
Wokingham) is offering to lead a strategic group for across the west of Berkshire. The
strategic group will consider safeguarding of disabled children within its remit and identify
areas for the LSCB to lead on/consider.
Case Review Group – FGT asked if a Chair had been identified. LS stated that she has put
herself forward, with Jo Horsburgh as deputy. This hasn’t been put to the Case Review Group
for agreement yet so is not confirmed. FGT raised some concern around the high level of
health commitment to Chair/Deputy Chair sub groups, particularly LS’s capacity. FGT agreed
to keep this under review to ensure sustainability.
Actions Update:
178 - Safer Recruitment – online course went live in November 16. 54 people have completed
the course from across the partnership. It has been shared across the west of Berkshire for
other LAs and partner organisations to use. BH confirmed that log in details can be circulated
again and will be included in the LSCB training programme. Board members felt it wasn’t too
schools focussed and EK noted that she has updated BWA policies as a result.
FGT noted that West Berks SCR will be published on 1st Feb and there is significant learning in
relation to safer working practices. BH confirmed that the LSCB training programme for
2017/18 will include a course on safer working practices.
182 – EB reported that Jean Ash will be writing out to all GPs and schools via the LAC Nurse
and Virtual Head, to remind them of the regulatory requirements around private fostering.
The link to the LSCB website will be provided and the RBC guide for professionals will be
included.
199 – Query regarding the Emergency Contraception bullet point within the thresholds. TP
confirmed a meeting is arranged to discuss with Children’s Social Care and health colleagues
209 – CAMHS data - LS has spoken to Louise Noble who confirmed that commentary is slightly
different in all three west of Berkshire areas. Louise will provide local information if possible
in the future.
Item 3
210 – LSCB dataset - LS confirmed that dataset will be reviewed at the next QA &P meeting.
No feedback has been received; Board members are requested to inform LS of any changes.
Emotional Health and Wellbeing
Update from Future in Mind:
TP confirmed that she and AFi had met to discuss and provide the Reading focussed
information in paper 2. The paper details the areas where progress has been made, including
2
Item
Discussion and Action
a successful start to the School Link project, waiting time reductions to assessment and
intervention at Tier 3, improved risk management of urgent care cases presenting mainly at
the hospital, a range of new and improved service offers that were gaps, plus the expansion
of web based Young SHaRON support.
Whom
The ongoing issues are:
• How to improve the collaboration and collective action to prevent the escalation of a
small cohort of young people that are often accessing RBH on the back of a mental
health episode
• Need to improve the engagement of key secondary schools in the school link project
and other initiatives to improve the identification and first response to mental health
concerns.
• Ensure that more School Nursing time can be protected to deliver more PHSE,
consultation and direct delivery in schools around Mental Health.
• The number of referrals into CAMHs Year to date has increased by 4.5% since the
2014/15 baseline. The service is also seeing an increase in complexity of cases.
TP noted that there is good work happening, but there is still a high need. Future in Mind will
now starting to focus in on more specific areas.
It is proposed that Emotional Health and Wellbeing be removed as LSCB priority for next year,
but Board members who also sit on the Future in Mind group will continue to feedback on the
above four points.
AR asked if there can be more information provided through the secondary heads network
meeting and scheduled into their agenda. The next meeting is in February. AF offered to
send a staff member to discuss schools link project. AR confirmed that Academies are
represented at that meeting.
FGT raised the issue of the small cohort with complex needs. TP confirmed these young
people often present at A&E with self harm but have a complex history that sits behind this.
There could be ways of managing these young people differently if we identify them and bring
individual agency information together. TP confirmed there is an interest in doing this.
Evidence from the THRIVE audit and our review of case A15 support this approach. There is
confidence in the system that there is an appropriate response to their immediate need, but
now we need to work backwards and think differently about this cohort.
RS agreed that focusing on frequent attenders has worked well in adults, and it is critical to
get all key partners together.
FGT requested feedback on progress in July/Sept 2017.
Tier 2 work in Schools, sharing good practice:
Future In Mind has funded this project in Reading which is about building capacity in the
system, with schools as a fundamental part of the process, equipping them to feel confident
to deal with the issue. The project trains the whole school in PEPCare, identifies and trains
specialists and provides tools to the school to be enable them to respond to the need using
evidence based intervention.
SG asked if TVP are included as TVP has 2 schools officers and junior cadets. TP confirmed
that the young people are often known to many agencies. SG noted this also links to
Troubled Families. SG and AF to discuss further.
3
Item
Discussion and Action
Whom
TP noted that a young person presented at the Future in Mind meeting which was very
powerful.
FGT noted that it feels we are in a better position in terms of understanding. AF confirmed
that all CAMHS pathway waiting lists have reduced, except ASD, where issues are more
complicated. Future in Mind is aware of this and has a specific task group looking at the issue.
FGT noted that there is overlap with the Disabled Children group and must ensure that both
groups ensure there are no gaps or duplication.
Item 4
Action:
• AR to schedule Emotional Health and Wellbeing on the secondary heads network
meeting in February.
• AFi offered to send a staff member to the secondary heads network meeting to
discuss schools link project.
• Update from Future in Mind - FGT requested feedback on progress in July/Sept 2017
• PEPCare - AFi and AR agreed to discuss and identify key schools to target in the next
cohort.
• SG and AFi to discussed Schools Link project further to identify where TVP colleagues
can support, and links to Troubled Families.
CP-IS
AR
AFi
TP/AFi
AF/AR
SG/AFi
LS presented the paper to the Board to ensure Board members were sighted on this project.
Its aim is to improve communication across health departments, in particular where young
people can just walk in (i.e. are not registered). It is also a way to close the gap when Reading
children access health services outside of the borough and vice versa.
It is a mandated requirement for health but not for social care, however social care
involvement is crucial to ensure it works. Health providers locally have progressed to ensure
compliance – RBH and BHFT are almost ready to go live. With regards to Local Authorities, it
has been a struggle to engage with the right person in RBC.
LS and SGa have had a conversation to identify a named person/people in RBC, ideally a mix
of IT, Information Governance and Children’s Social Care.
There had been some funding available but deadline was 27th January.
SGa has spoken to the RBC legal team and a representative will attend the next meeting to
identify the most appropriate onward representative. The IT contact will be Andrew Withey.
EK challenged that this only notes where children are presenting, but for example, if a parent
attended A&E after a domestic abuse incident where children involved, would they be
included. LS confirmed it is only the child presenting, at this stage.
TP noted that we will run new process alongside our current system for identifying CP and
LAC children to ensure system is safe.
SG challenged if there are any links to TVP as they are often in attendance at incidents.
Suggest that this links to TF as they hold a range of databases. LS agreed that there are gaps
in the process, which includes missing key partners. LS noted that Swindon and Hampshire
are already live. LS will feedback missing partners to project group. SG urged that issues
reviewed now rather than after implementation.
4
Item
Item 5
Discussion and Action
Whom
Action:
• LS will feedback the issue of missing partners to CP-IS project group.
LS
LSCB Budget
FGT challenged partners to assess whether they are confident that the LSCB can meet its
statutory duties following the proposed budget reductions highlighted in the paper.
LS confirmed that she has had discussions with DS, who has spoken to the commissioners.
They recognise that the cuts will significantly affect the functioning of the Board and as a
result DS has managed to secure a contribution of £25k. This matches the current year’s
funding and is an increase of around £8k on the level of funding initially proposed. LS stated
that the CCG recognise that the LSCB is even more crucial at the moment; however the LSCB
must consider possibility of working more flexibly across the West of Berks, where possible.
There is a significant amount of goodwill as well as monetary funding.
SGa noted the challenge to the partnership around the discussions required and the links to
the Wood Review. The LSCB must look at how it can deliver going forward. A difficult
conversation but necessary.
FGT challenged that the Board needs to focus on those things that deliver good impact.
Opportunities in relation to the Wood Review will not impact from April 1st, and a plan is not
required until the autumn. The concern is that the board requires improvement and there is
a large improvement journey ahead, with significant risks in the risk log. Compared to
statistical neighbours we are an underfunded Board. FGT was clear that the budget was
inadequate to deliver statutory duties when she became Chair in 2014 and a further cut raises
challenges on the capacity of people to deliver. LSCBs still hold the same statutory duties
until such time statutory changes are made.
SG challenged that we need further clarity on what our statutory duties are, as the current
paper doesn’t make it clear as to how they will be affected.
KS stated that the challenges on the RBC budget are significant, resulting in the 40% reduction
in contribution to the LSCB budget. KS has not had sight of a risk assessment.
FGT has asked for a meeting with the RBC MD to share her concerns and hopes to meet after
CSIB on 31st January.
EK challenged that learning from auditing or case reviews requires onward dissemination and
the ability to do this will be lost. We will not be able to evidence that auditing has led to any
improvement.
EK suggested we write to national government to explain result of cuts more generally. TP
agreed that we need to push upwards as a Board, in conjunction with the Local Authority, as
there are cuts across services that will impact children.
LS noted that we need to look at working more cohesively across the county but this won’t
happen on 1st April. RBC does lead on the safeguarding agenda. Future joint plans will need
to be planned meticulously. FGT noted that we don’t want to lose local focus or momentum.
FGT challenged that she has not had written confirmation from RBC regarding the budget
5
Item
Discussion and Action
reduction only verbal conversations with the previous DCS and then with AMD in December.
Whom
JR asked for a risk assessment from RBC. HP challenged that in other Boards where a partner
has proposed a budget reduction, a paper is presented by them to explain the reasoning and
impact. It is disappointing that this hasn’t happened here.
SG reiterated that there is one issue regarding the impact on delivery of the broader
safeguarding network and the second issue is what the board itself can deliver. SG requested
that the LSCB present risks and impact of the reduction against statutory responsibilities.
KS suggested that FGT raise at CSIB. GF noted that she will not be able to authorise any
overspend on the budget.
FGT agreed that the paper sets out examples of impact but doesn’t set out impact on
statutory duties. An updated paper is required.
Item 6
Action:
• FGT requested that key colleagues from TVP, Health and RBC meet as soon as
possible to discuss further. EB to organise.
Performance and Quality Assurance
EB
QA and Performance Exception report:
LS presented the paper and raised the issue that CSC representation needs to be resolved. To
ensure appropriate impact, scrutiny and challenge there needs to be consistent attendance
from statutory partners. SGa confirmed that Ali Matthews will be attending each meeting.
LS spoke to the LAC audit. There is a challenge regarding the use of the SDQ (strengths and
difficulties questionnaire). This is a serious concern given national expectations that all
children in care will have an SDQ.
With regards to the Perinatal referrals from maternity services to children’s services report,
TP confirmed that the newly appointed interim Named Midwife, Amanda Shearer, will pick up
this work.
Audit programme – LS stated that the work needs to be meaningful and have impact,
therefore Board were made aware that the group will struggle to complete the survey of CYP
from different cultural backgrounds. There has been difficulty with scoping and the QA&P
Group felt this should actually be a standard theme in each audit. The Board agreed.
LS confirmed that the West of Berks Neglect audit is in progress. Sharing auditing work across
the area is a positive move. AFi confirmed this was discussed at the Neglect Task and Finish
sub group this week. There are 3 parts to the audit, of which the first is file auditing and will
be completed. The two other sections include talking to professionals and talking to young
people. Further work around this is required to review whether we have capacity and how to
complete it properly, especially with regards to speaking to young people. FGT asked that
headline learning be received at the May Board.
SGa noted that there are currently many competing demands on Children’s Social Care staff
time, and the focus has to be on improving social care case work. A large number of neglect
cases have recently been audited and this learning should be used.
LS agreed that this needs to be a meaningful piece of work with clear actions. EK challenged
6
Item
Discussion and Action
that audit is to obtain multi-agency learning.
Whom
SGa is clear that Children’s Social Care want to engage and share learning from the large
number of internal audits that are already carried out.
Discussion is required outside of the meeting to agree how best to progress with the audit
that does not duplicate work already done.
Dataset – A copy of the full dataset is provided in the papers. LS noted that the group is
currently without a Chair and she is stepping in temporarily as the Deputy. LS is clear that
there is unfinished work within the group; therefore although a more compact dashboard
would be a preference, there is not the time in the group currently to progress this. The
group needs to prioritise other areas of work. LS confirmed that the whole data set will be
reviewed at the February meeting to ensure it is capturing the right information for analysis.
LS talked through highlight issues covered in the report:
Health assessments – Initial health assessments are the key issue. SGa and LS have been
working together to try and address the issue and work is still ongoing. Regular meetings and
strategies are in place to address. From 1st April the provision will transfer from the RBH to
BHFT who currently provide review health assessments.
SGa noted that the IHA challenge has been ongoing for some time and suggested another
Local Authority is approached to see how they achieve better results. LS stated that the new
plans will align the east and west of the county to a pan Berkshire approach.
FGT challenged that the main issue is out of borough children as these are often more
vulnerable. We have statutory responsibilities and therefore we need to provide challenge.
TP confirmed that this has been built into the procedure for escalation i.e. if a plan is not
received in a timely manner from another area. TP also felt risk assessing each case allows us
to prioritise. JR noted that Terry Rich (Chair for the Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maidenhead LSCB) has been speaking to Sarah Hughes in East on same issue and a discussion
between Chairs may be helpful.
SGa suggested that the initial health assessments and SDQ issues go into the scorecard
(dataset) going forward to ensure we continue to monitor. EB/DG to highlight on the dataset.
SG noted that FGM figure shows an increase and asked for clarification on where the data
comes from and what is done with it. AFi confirmed these are statutory reporting numbers
from the midwifery service at RBH and are all adults. AFi confirmed that there are referrals
into Children’s Social Care for suspected cases that are not included in this data. Can this data
be obtained for the next QA group and FGM task and finish group?
KS confirmed that there is now a clear dataset from Children’s Services provided to the CSIB
and EB & DG will regularly receive that to inform the LSCB dataset.
LS noted that the number of LAC had increased. SGa clarified that current position is 248 –
showing a plateauing and reduction as the work of Family Group Conferencing and other
work is starting to have an effect. It is moving nearer to national average.
FGT and the Board thank DG for all of her hard work on the dataset.
THRIVE audit (Emotional Health and Wellbeing) – LS reported that this was led by West
Berkshire, with Reading and Wokingham participating. LS explained that THRIVE looks at a
7
Item
Discussion and Action
holistic circle of care rather than the traditional tiered system. The cohort was based on
young people that experienced highest level of mental health need. In Reading 3 cases
reviewed in depth to provide a quality review. A range of professionals came together with
their records to carry out the audit.
The results found that services responded appropriately to the immediate needs of the child.
In Reading, the difficulty was that the cases often escalated very quickly therefore it was hard
to know if using a different model would have been more beneficial. There was clear
evidence of parents voices being/loud dominant and possibly overshadowing needs and
wishes of the young people. LS noted that in only 1 case, THRIVE applied at a very early stage
may have resulted in a different approach to the child’s emerging presentations. However,
the group were also clear that as this was 10 year previously, it is unlikely things would have
been different.
Whom
Recommendations have not yet been signed off, or presenting to QA group, so are subject to
change.
FGT asked for a final copy to be circulated to the Board when ready. LS will discuss with
Louise Noble and Andrea King to finalise and will email round to the Board.
Action:
• EB to include LAC audit paper with the minutes.
• Neglect Audit - FGT asked that headline learning be received at the May Board.
• Neglect Audit - Discussion required outside of the meeting to agree how best to
progress with the audit that does not duplicate work already done.
• SGa suggested that the initial health assessments and SDQ issues go into the
scorecard (dataset) going forward to ensure we continue to monitor.
• FGM - AFi confirmed that there are referrals into Children’s Social Care for suspected
cases that are not included in this data. Can this data be obtained for the next QA
group and FGM task and finish group?
• THRIVE Audit - FGT asked for a final copy to be circulated to the Board when ready.
LS will discuss with Louise Noble and Andrea King to finalise and will email round to
the Board.
EB
AFi
LS/AFi/SGa
EB/DG
AFi/EB
LS
Thresholds and access to services at the right level:
EB presented the paper written by EB and AFi. A provisional meeting has been scheduled for
2nd February with key partners to discuss this issue in more detail to enable all parties to
understand what the issue is. There continues to be high numbers of contacts into MASH that
do not become referrals, however partners feel that they are referring appropriately.
FGT noted that this is an area of intense scrutiny at the CSIB where the LSCB are being called
to account. FGT needs to share compelling information to CSIB next week on how we plan to
change the culture.
TP confirmed that she and AFi have met. The main referring services from the RBH were
reviewed to ensure processes are being followed correctly. TP confirmed that services are
reporting appropriately from maternity, sexual health services are providing an early help
service so don’t refer in, and Do Not Attend (DNAs) are scrutinised – every child that DNAs is
referred to Jo Horsburgh for review. With regards to the Emergency Department, the only
concern was a discussion about frequent attenders aged 16/17. AFi & TP agreed that their
conversation focused on children rather than focussing on the process.
AFi agreed that the initial paper based work is done (i.e. the review of thresholds and new
8
Item
Discussion and Action
Whom
documentation) and we have communicated this out. The evidence is broad brush – contacts
come in but don’t end up as referrals. The single front door will make a difference and will
resolve an issue within RBC. However, practitioners will require the confidence and skills to
have difficult conversations with families to gain consent, otherwise referrals will be returned.
FGT noted that a similar conversation in Wokingham highlighted that the advisory role at their
front door meant that this wasn’t such an issue. AFi confirmed that the new front door will
have this.
LS agreed we have discussed this often. A family needs a service but it may not reach the
threshold for children’s services. Front line practitioners cannot understand the thresholds,
especially as they are different over the three west of Berkshire areas.
BH clarified that thresholds information has been embedded in safeguarding training, and
professionals are always reminded that they have to do something if they have a concern.
SG challenged that there is an issue with language. A ‘referral’ from the Police is a ‘contact’
for MASH. TVP always told to make as many referrals as possible to ensure we identify
hidden harm as part of a multi-agency view of the case.
AFi confirmed that we have different expectations of different partners. There is a difference
between a single incident from a TVP perspective and those professionals with long-standing
relationships.
FGT challenged that the information still doesn’t provide enough detail to, for example,
highlight key schools. AF stated that this would not be appropriate in this forum and a level of
data was provided at the last meeting. We should ask the partners to review their referrals.
FGT challenged that she did not feel not assured that the conversation was happening with
key schools.
HP agreed that some partners will require more detailed information on whether they are
doing the right thing. In TVCRC each referral to Children’s Social Care is audited but this is not
possible for all partners. Agencies need detailed feedback to know whether referrals are
appropriate. FGT agreed this should be part of day to day business.
AR stated that schools are in a difficult position as they need to make a decision on that day.
RD agreed, as a very different inspection criteria has been introduced for independent schools
and safeguarding is a key part of this. A school may have 6 hours at most to make a decision
about whether a call has to be made before the child goes home. The sector will be more
challenged by what Ofsted and ISI are expecting of schools.
TP asked that the top 10 schools to be worked with be identified i.e. both those making
inappropriate referrals and those not making any referrals.
FGT asked who is going to have this conversation with schools. ‘Thresholds’ is a process and
the conversation needs to focus on what the families, children and young people need.
HT challenged that no feedback is being given. The VCS made over 300 referrals as a sector in
2015/16 but there was only 1 instance where the referrer was invited to the follow up
discussion. How do organisations/individuals they know if they are getting it wrong?
AF confirmed he will feed this in to the work around front door. AF reiterated that
professionals need to be able to have honest and open conversations with families and the
9
Item
Discussion and Action
skills and confidence to be able to do this has been recognised in the Neglect task and finish
group as a need.
Whom
SG stated that the narrative for this issue should not be that there are too many referrals.
TP agreed that it is a concerned that we are lacking detail. Need partners working with LA to
review.
The Board agreed that CSIB need to understand that this is very complex information.
Recommended Actions:
• Deep dive conversations with partners to understand sector by sector what the issues
are
• Need to set up a meeting with key partners to consider the whole issue of thresholds
and to re-frame how it is presented and to agree what further actions required to
change the culture
• Review the language used to ensure consistency in meaning
• Include ongoing work/identified actions in the forward plan
Item 7
AFi
EB/AFi
AFi
AFi
Effectiveness of the Board
Challenge and Risk Log (Red items):
• Timeliness of Health Assessments – discussed earlier in the meeting.
• Mosques and Madrassahs – queries were raised about whether safeguarding policies
exist or are being displayed on websites. BH confirmed she was involved with a
significant amount of work a couple of years ago. The issue is that there are
potentially a large number of madrassahs. SH noted that Bradford LSCB has set out
some useful information on their website. BH will review and investigate.
Wokingham raised an issue about what we should be doing with sports clubs. HT
noted that RCVYS had sent out 1100 emails to all clubs in Reading offering
safeguarding training and had no responses. FGT suggest that a small group have an
initial meeting to scope the work and bring outcomes of their work to a future Board
meeting.
• Budget – discussed earlier in the meeting.
LSCB Sub Group Reports:
Noted
Reading LSCB Priorities 2017/2018:
SH felt Prevention and Early Help are important given the cuts in RBC. FGT suggested they be
weaved into Neglect. CSE to include wider exploitation such as trafficking, slavery and on-line
exploitation.
•
•
•
•
Neglect, including Early Help and Prevention
Domestic Abuse from a child’s perspective
Disabled Children
CSE and Missing Children, including trafficking, slavery and on-line exploitation
FGT challenged that the Board need to think about deliverable outcomes. FGT agreed to
produce an initial draft chart with outcomes and description of priorities, by end Feb. This
will be circulated for partners to further develop and add actions.
10
Item
Discussion and Action
Action:
• FGT in discussion with the DCS in Wokingham will arrange a cross West of Berks
meeting including involvement of the Reading FC Safeguarding lead and bring
outcomes of their work to a future Board meeting.
• FGT agreed to produce an initial draft chart with outcomes and description of
priorities, end Feb. This will be circulated for partners to develop further and add
actions.
Whom
FGT
FGT
LSCB Improvement and Development Exception report:
Noted.
Item 9
Item
10
Items to be referred to other partnership Boards:
None noted.
Any other Business
Action:
• TP requested that child death (and the rapid response audit) be on the next agenda.
Information Items
•
•
•
DG
LADO Annual Report (For Information)
Children’s Social Care Complaints Annual Report (For Information)
IRO Annual Report (For Information)
Future Board Meetings
Date
21st March 2017
30th May 2017
27th July 2017
28th September 2017
7th December 2017
Time
9.30am to 12.30pm
9.30am to 12.30pm
9.30am to 12.30pm
9.30am to 12.30pm
9.30am to 12.30pm
Venue
Committee Room 4A and B, Civic Offices, RG1 2LU
Committee Room 4A and B, Civic Offices, RG1 2LU
Conference Room, Level 3, Thames Valley Police Station
Conference Room, Level 3, Thames Valley Police Station
Conference Room, Level 3, Thames Valley Police Station
11
Outstanding Board Actions:
No.
Date
Action
By
Whom
All
Update
Timescale
183
21.07.16
Board Members to complete a short template on the
communication channels for their agency for cascading
the work of the LSCB.
24.11.16 - No information received. EB asked if colleagues could
identify relevant people to send information to. FGT requested a
short summary from each agency to identify the relevant paths of
distributing information.
24.11.16 - HT will follow this action up along with action 196
regarding mental health support in schools.
09.12.16
192
29.09.16
BC and EB to discuss Safer Recruitment Training for
Schools further as RCVYS may be able to assist with this
BC/HT
196
29.09.16
204
24.11.16
BC advised that the voluntary sector have expertise in
mental health and they can support schools with this
and will facilitate discussions.
Ben Cross, RCVYS to be involved in the SEN & Disabled
Children T&F Group meetings.
BC/HT
24.11.16 – See 192
09.12.16
TP
Not set up as yet.
01.03.17
214
26.01.17
AR to schedule Emotional Health and Wellbeing on the
secondary heads network meeting in February.
AR
215
26.01.17
AFi
216
26.01.17
217
26.01.17
218
26.01.17
219
26.01.17
220
26.01.17
221
222
26.01.17
26.01.17
223
26.01.17
AFi offered to send a staff member to the secondary
heads network meeting to discuss schools link project.
Update from Future in Mind - FGT requested feedback
on progress in July/Sept 2017
PEPCare - AFi and AR agreed to discuss and identify key
schools to target in the next cohort.
SG and AFi to discussed Schools Link project further to
identify where TVP colleagues can support, and links to
Troubled Families.
CP-IS - LS will feedback the issue of missing partners to
CP-IS project group.
Budget - FGT requested that key colleagues from TVP,
Health and RBC meet within the next week to discuss
further. EB to organise.
EB to include LAC paper with the minutes.
Neglect Audit - FGT asked that headline learning be
received at the May Board.
Neglect Audit - Discussion required outside of the
TP/AFi
09.12.16
28.02.17
DG has added to the forward planner for July and September 2017
30.01.17
AFi/
AR
SG/
AFi
28.02.17
LS
28.02.17
28.02.17
EB
Completed
31.01.17
EB
AFi
Completed
DG has added to forward planner for May 2017
31.01.17
30.01.17
LS/AFi/S
28.01.17
12
224
26.01.17
225
26.01.17
226
26.01.17
227
26.01.17
228
26.01.17
229
26.01.17
230
26.01.17
231
26.01.17
232
26.01.17
233
26.01.17
234
26.01.17
meeting to agree how best to progress with the audit
that does not duplicate work already done.
SGa suggested that the initial health assessments and
SDQ issues go into the scorecard (dataset) going forward
to ensure we continue to monitor.
FGM - AFi confirmed that there are referrals into
Children’s Social Care for suspected cases that are not
included in this data. Can this data be obtained for the
next QA group and FGM task and finish group?
THRIVE Audit - FGT asked for a final copy to be circulated
to the Board when ready. LS will discuss with Louise
Noble and Andrea King to finalise and will email round to
the Board.
Thresholds - Deep dive conversations with partners to
understand sector by sector what the issues are
Need to set up a meeting with key partners to consider
the whole issue of thresholds and to re-frame how it is
presented and to agree what further actions required to
change the culture
Thresholds - Review the language used to ensure
consistency in meaning
Thresholds - Include ongoing work/identified actions in
the forward plan
FGT in discussion with the DCS in Wokingham will
arrange a cross West of Berks meeting including
involvement of the Reading FC Safeguarding lead and
bring outcomes of their work to a future Board meeting
Priorities - FGT agreed to produce an initial draft chart
with outcomes and description of priorities, by mid/end
Feb. This will be circulated for partners to add actions.
TP requested that child death (and the rapid response
audit) be on the next agenda.
Mosques and Madrassahs - FGT suggest that a small
group have an initial meeting to scope the work and
bring outcomes of their work to a future Board meeting.
Ga
EB/DG
Already included in Dashboard – 7.5/7.6 /11.7/11.8 and 11.10
30.01.17
AFi/EB
28.02.17
LS
28.02.17
AFi
28.02.17
EB/AFi
28.02.17
AFi
28.02.17
AFi
28.02.17
FGT
28.02.17
FGT
28.02.17
EB/DG
FGT
Completed – Added to agenda
28.02.17
13