Multi-Agency Scrutiny Activity

In June 2016 the LSCB (now known as the CSCP) Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and Missing from Home (MFH) Subgroup undertook a CSE themed audit. 

The subgroup audited 5 cases and looked at how well we protect children who are at risk of CSE. The group audited 5 cases; one Child Protection, one Child in Need, one Early Help, one Child Looked After and one Child Looked After placed out of county case, with the ages of children ranging from 12 years to 17 years. Four of the young people were girls and one was a boy.

Key learning from the audits

Voice of the Child

As part of the audit process two children whose cases were audited told us about their experiences. This is what they said:

Child A said that they had had two social workers and they have both been ‘really nice’. Initially Child A didn’t like them or want to see them but this was because of worries that they were going to be taken away. Child A felt that the fact they kept coming showed they cared and were ‘bothered’ and ‘wanted to help’.

Child A also told us that they thought schools should teach more about CSE as Child A didn’t really know what it was until the Police told them.

Child B told us they felt that they hadn’t been listened to and it had never been explained to them why they had been involved in CSE. Child B told us that their laptop and phone were removed and no one explained or told them why this had happened. Child B said this made them feel small and angry with ‘authority’.

Child B said they did not talk much to their old Social Worker. They have a new Social worker and didn’t talk much to them in the beginning but is talking to them now and telling them more.

Having a ‘good’ and trusting relationship with a professional is paramount in work with children who experience both running away and CSE. It is also important for professionals to work in an approachable, open and warm manner.

Child sexual exploitation: definition and guide for practitioners (GOV.UK)

Risk Assessment Tools

The audit identified that the CSE Risk Assessment Tool was not always being completed on a multi-agency basis, were not being reviewed regularly and were not routinely shared with relevant agencies.

Read Child Exploitation (including Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Criminal Exploitation) - to understand the process for completing the CSE Risk Assessment Tool.

Plans

A number of cases identified issues around plans. CSE risk often exists alongside other concerns and therefore the more specific risk of CSE and the management of it is not always clearly enough dealt with in the child’s plan. Plans were not always shared with relevant agencies.

Read Child Exploitation (including Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Criminal Exploitation) - LSCB’s updated (which is live on the manual from the 23 February 2017) contains pathways for the action to be taken including information on what should be included in a child’s plan

Children Looked After

The audit found that when Children Looked After who are at risk of CSE were placed out of county the risk was not always reduced and members of the LSCB’s CSE/MFH oversight group, other than children’s services, were not involved in the child’s plan and therefore there was a lack of multi-agency oversight.

Following the audit the LSCB CSE/MFH Oversight Group introduced a standing agenda item for Children Placed out of County; the Oversight Group receives monthly updates about progress, incidents of note and increased or decreased risk.

For more information on CSE, read our guidance on CSE. 

In June 2016 the Quality Assurance Groups (QAGs) undertook a Missing from Home themed audit to examine the quality of the Multi-Agency response to MFH cases, considering how well we protect children who go missing.

A total of 11 cases were audited by the QAGs this included 3 children placed out of County, 3 children with a single missing episode, 3 children previously unknown to Social Care and 2 children with multiple missing episodes. In addition to this the MFH pod in the Safeguarding Hub audited the cases of 3 children placed into the County by other authorities. The ages of children ranged from 10 years to 17 years, 9 were boys and 5 were girls.

Key learning from the audits

Voice of the child

As part of the audit process five young people whose cases were audited provided feedback on their experiences. This is what they told us:

One child said they ‘wouldn’t go missing if the staff would allow me to stay out overnight’. They said that they ‘would prefer not to be interviewed, I talk to the staff in the home if I need to’.

Another child told us about what happened when they went missing saying that ‘the police were really nice talking to me, took me home and made sure I was ok and safe. They asked why I went missing, where did I go, who did I see and was I safe.’ They also said the person who undertook their return interview was ‘nice’ and they had also talked to their social worker about the missing episode.

When asked about going missing one child told us that the person who had carried out their return home interview ‘was ok’ and they ‘felt listened to’.

Another child talked about their placement moves; they said they had moved placements a lot over the last year, mostly out of county and said that after living in small towns in Cumbria they had found city life hard and felt it was easier to get into trouble. They told us they didn’t speak to their social worker much but they did talk about going missing and the social worker checked they were ok.  The child said they think that ‘you can only stop going missing if you sort your head out’.

72 Hour Timescale

A number of cases identified issues around the 72 hour timescale for completion of return home interviews with interviews being completed outside of the 72 hour timescale. For children who have a high level of missing and complex needs the QAGs felt it to be ‘almost impossible’ to sustain completion within 72 hours due to the often chaotic circumstances e.g. hospitalisation, custody and continuous periods of missing.

Plans

The QAGs found evidence of some good plans where risks were appropriately assessed and robust actions were in place. However, in some cases audited the plan was not always reducing risk for the child and needed to be reviewed.

When a child has gone missing the return interview must be discussed and analysed alongside the child’s plan and risk assessment. Where a child already has an established pattern of running away, the child’s plan should include a strategy about keeping the child safe and minimising the likelihood of the child running away in the future.

Stage 1 and 2 Meetings

There was evidence of Stage 1 and 2 intervention meetings taking place, but this was not consistent. There were some children who hit the threshold for stage 1 and/or stage 2 and meetings were not held. In some instances the right agencies were not being invited to the stage 1 and 2 intervention meetings

Read the Children who go Missing from Care or Home procedures

A stage 1 intervention meeting must be held where a child has been missing for 5 episodes within a 90 day rolling period and a stage 2 intervention meeting must be held when there are 9 missing episodes within a 90 day rolling period. The procedure also lists the agencies who should attend these meetings.

Child Placed in Cumbria by Other Authorities

For children placed by other authorities into Cumbria the audit found that the work of Cumbria Police and the join up with the Safeguarding Hub was good in all three cases audited. However, it was clear from the audit that when a return home interview is requested from an external placing authority it is very unlikely that it will be returned to the Safeguarding Hub.

In September 2022 the focus of the CSCP Local Area Safeguarding Groups scrutiny activity was neglect. Neglect is the persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child's health or development (Working Together to Safeguard Children (GOV.UK).

The audit considered how well we protect children who are experiencing neglect. A total of 12 children's records were audited, with the ages of children ranging from 5 months up to 18 years old.

Key learning from the audits

Findings from the scrutiny work identified the need for the previous Neglect Strategy to be reviewed and refreshed.

Use of neglect tools and practice guidance

It was clear from the audits that there was not evidence of the Graded Care Profile 2 neglect identification tools being used. Feedback from practitioners was that they wanted a tool that was easier to use. Therefore, a Neglect Task and Finish Group was set up to review tools that could be used by practitioners. It was agreed the use of 'A Day in my Life' tools which were launched on 27 September 2023.

For CSCP 'A Day in my Life' Tools, go to our guidance on neglect.

Chronologies

Identified in the Scrutiny activity was the need to have an impact chronology in place. There were a number of families with a long history of involvement with statutory services, and the use of chronologies and an understanding of previous history should have been used to inform assessments and plans.

Do you use historical information when you are making an assessment of risk?

Voice of the child

In a number of cases the voice of the child was not evident and too much focus was given to the parents or the child’s siblings.

Read our guidance to ensure the voice of the child is heard